Political Observation - Operation Breaking Dawn and the Continued Political Biddings in "Israel"  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Operation Breaking Dawn and the Continued Political Biddings in "Israel"

Political biddings between the "Israeli" right and the far-right continue to be the main driver of the performance of the coalition government led by Lapid, the American support for which has been evident since US backing was mustered for it with the aim of embellishing its profile at the Negev Summit that took place on 27/28 March 2022, with the participation of the Egyptian, Emirati, Moroccan, and Bahraini foreign ministers and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. This is due to Netanyahu’s persistent attempt to unsettle the government after America had conspired to topple him in the “al-Quds Sword” Operation, as the coalition government led by Naftali Bennett suffered a security failure, impotence and confusion as a result of the fedayeen operations inside Palestine, especially since the security factor is the most influential in the tendencies of the "Israeli" electorate.

Worsening Political Situation in Iraq 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Worsening Political Situation in Iraq

Leader of the Sadrist Movement in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, described on Sunday 31 July his supporters’ storming of the parliament building as an opportunity to fundamentally change the political system in the country. Al-Sadr's supporters stormed the council's headquarters in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad on Saturday 30 July 30 for the second time in days and announced an open sit-in in protest against the nomination of the former leader of the Da’awah Party, Muhammad Shia' Al-Sudani for the position of prime minister. Muqtada al-Sadr addressed the Iraqis by saying: "Oh, free, proud people who love reform, democracy, citizenship, law, independence, sovereignty, grandeur, and confining arms to a strong patriarchal state that imposes law on itself before the poor and does not exclude the influential, militias and the like. You are all responsible and all of you are at stake." He concluded by saying: "Either an Iraq lofty among nations, or a vassal Iraq controlled by the corrupt, collaborators and those with worldly ambitions, or even an Iraq controlled by the hands of outsiders, east and west."
In fact, Iraq is still suffering from the consequences of the American occupation and its fallouts which resulted from America's harnessing of Iran and the "Shiite" forces to overthrow the Baathist regime in 2003, within the scheme of reshaping the Middle East, and the exigencies of the regional solution which required dismantling and weakening the region, terrifying its regimes and forcing them to conclude an alliance and normalise their relations with the Zionist entity, while clipping Iran’s wings after she had persisted in oppressing the people of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, and after America had used her to stoke the sectarian strife and projected her as a more ferocious and more dangerous enemy than the Zionist entity to the people of the region within a functional agenda that provided a pretext for the Arab regimes to sidestep the “Arab Initiative” that stipulated a settlement with the Palestinian Authority before the alliance, full normalisation, and regional integration.

What is occurring in Iraq is a tussle between the tools of the political game pertinent to the guardianship of American interests. In other words, it is akin to the struggle between concubines over the favours of the American sponsor. Al-Sadr is working towards restoring Iraq to her Arab surroundings while the Coordination Framework led by Nuri al-Maliki is working towards achieving the interests of the United States through the gates of Iran whose role in serving the United States has enabled her to privilege her surrogates at the expense of their opponents and harness them in her nationalist, sectarian and political agenda, especially that she took charge of the confrontation with “Daesh” on behalf of America, and was the official sponsor of the “Shia” opposition forces since the Iraq-Iran war and the second Gulf War in 1991, in addition to embracing the “Iraqi Da’wah Party”, whose safe haven was Iran all along, and which was closer to her than the Sadrist Movement and the Shia forces that harboured some apprehensions towards the Shia authorities with Persian inclinations.

It is common knowledge that as a consequence of Iran's support for the American projects in the region, especially the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and her proxies have secured a host of expedient, sectarian and nationalist interests. However, preserving these gains has become a discordant request that clashed with the American policy pertinent to the nature of the regional and international phase which is the reason why she was hemmed in by the United States and targeted by "Israel", and which is also the reason why Putin has been attempting to win her over and widen the wedge in her relationship with the United States and the Arab countries. As for the divided Iraqi political milieu, most of its men came on the backs of American tanks after the American military governor, Paul Bremer, had formed the Transitional Governing Council which brought about the current sectarian quota constitution, according to which the three presidencies were established, namely the presidency of the state for the "Kurds", the prime minister for the "Shia" and the presidency of the House of Representatives for the "Sunnah".

Since the beginning of the political process in Iraq, a dispute cropped up between Muqtada al-Sadr and his political opponents. The dispute developed into a military confrontation between the Sadrist Movement and the government, which was backed by the American army. The dispute only ended when Muqtada al-Sadr decided to dissolve the Mahdi Army, the militia affiliated with him. His opponents' presence was reinforced and their strength increased, especially after “Daesh” had emerged and the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) linked to Iran had been formed. The PMF was the largest militia in Iraq since its invasion by the Americans but they later constituted a burden on the Iraqi government, forcing it to integrate them into the Iraqi forces in an attempt to contain them and prevent Iran from influencing them to the point that America was compelled to threaten them with force by assassinating Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis on 3 January 2020.
However, the Sadrist movement, led by Muqtada al-Sadr, has begun a detour towards Iraq’s Arab environment since 2017 in harmony with the policy of trimming Iran's wings in the region. Muqtada al-Sadr initiated a new phase of the conciliatory discourse between "Sunnis" and "Shias", condoning Abu Bakr and Omar, and drawing closer to Saudi Arabia and the Emirates which sent him an official invitation to visit them. Saudi offered during that visit millions of dollars to help the displaced under the pretext of combating “Daesh”, provided that the Iraqi government would receive the funds. This support enabled later the government of al-Kadhimi (the CIA man) to continue working to weaken Iran’s grip and undermine her influence. This provoked Iran and drove her to commit a host of violent reactions which made her appear as an enemy to the Iraqis who sided with the Sadrist Movement in the recent elections and bolstered the credentials of the camp supporting reconciliation with Arab countries, the regional solution and the Zionist integration in the region.

On November 30, the Iraqi Electoral Commission announced that the Sadrist Movement had won 73 seats to become the largest parliamentary bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Accordingly, it strived to form a majority government with the “Sunni parties” led by Parliament Speaker Muhammad al-Halbousi and the Kurdistan Democratic Party to marginalize the “Shia factions” backed by Iran who gathered under the banner of the Coordination Framework. However, this bloc, i.e., the Coordination Framework, which dreaded losing the influence of its parties and its financial and economic gains, succeeded in forming a "blocking third" of the parliament and prevented the parliamentary quorum from being completed to vote on a new president, and nominated Muhammad Shi’a al-Sudani for prime minister which provoked the Sadrist Movement and prompted it to withdraw from parliament to obstruct the Coordination Framework endeavour to form the government and move the confrontation to the streets, which led to aggravating the situation with both sides resorting to flexing their muscles, especially after recordings of former Prime Minister and Coordinating Framework leader Nuri al-Maliki were leaked in which he exposed Muqtada al-Sadr and threatened a bloody clash, which he expressed by appearing armed two days ago in the Green Zone after the Sadr group stormed the parliament, and after the Sadrist Movement had threatened an open sit-in in protest against al-Sudani's candidacy. The Coordination Framework responded by accusing the Sadrist Movement of hijacking the state and called for demonstrations to defend the state and its institutions whose cornerstones are held by the Coordination Framework. He added in a statement, "The recent developments herald a plan for staging a suspicious coup, hijacking the state, abolishing its legitimacy, humiliating its constitutional institutions, and cancelling the democratic process therein." He also mobilised his popular bases by saying: "Be faithful to the covenant and the promise, no way we will allow to be humiliated; our meeting shall be tomorrow, Monday, at five in the afternoon on the walls of the Green Zone.”

It has become clear from all of this that the Sadrist Movement has entered into a bone-breaking battle to restructure the regime based on “citizenship” that undermines the sectarian foundation which had enabled Iran to gain influence and affect the decision-making of the Iraqi state. The actions of Muqtada al-Sadr are consistent with the American efforts aimed at controlling political life in Iraq. This will put an end to the Iranian influence, which is alien to her functional role in Iraq and the entire region. It is possible that the tension and the escalation will continue not only in Iraq, but also in Lebanon and Syria due to the repercussions of the US international policy regarding China and Russia, which may provide pretexts and ammunitions for Iranian stubbornness on the grounds of common interests on the issues of the region, and given the tense regional situation on the Lebanese-"Israeli" side regarding the disputed gas areas, which are linked to the fate of Lebanon and its economic and political crisis, the pressing European need for energy alternatives, the jostling between eastern Mediterranean countries over gas reserves and its supply routes, and the follow-on escalation between "Israel" and Hezbollah and its sponsors in Syria and Iran.

Hence, do the leaders of Iraq, who have been tools in America’s hands, think about sabotaging Iraq further and sowing discord among her people to achieve immediate goals under the pretext of injustice? Do they believe that America will let them do what they want? They are woolgathering because all those who collaborated with America ended up wanting to curl up and die after they had been depleted in serving America and achieving her interests; and once their functional role ended, they were thrown into the ash heap of history.

Is it not high time the “Sunni” and “Shia” Iraqis renounced division, thwarted the plots of the Americans and the Iranians, rescued the country and the people from depraved schemes that seek to inflict ruin and destruction on Iraq and its people, and followed together in the footsteps of their ancestors who taught the British harsh lessons when they wanted to occupy Iraq last century?
 

4 Muharram 1444h                                                 hizbuttahrir.org
2 August 2022

.

Reasons Behind Rise in Global Prices of Goods & Services 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Reasons Behind Rise in Global Prices of Goods and Services

Russia’s war on Ukraine constituted an added reason, following the Covid-19 pandemic, and its fallouts on the global economy have added insult to injury as prices rose and global economies were struck by inflation. Inflation, or the sharp rise in the consumer price index, constitutes one of the signs that affect the countries of the world the most without any discrimination between the so-called developing countries and the industrialized Western countries, which is expected to have an impact on the growth of global economy.

Inflation has risen in many world economies after the US Federal Bank and the Bank of England had decided to raise interest rates which is the Capitalist containment policy regarding inflation that central banks resort to in order to slow the rate of economic growth, which financial expert Steve Forbes described as “beyond preposterous” that the Federal Reserve was trying to control inflation by slowing the growth of the US economy saying “creating too much money that undermines the value of the dollar is the real cause” of inflation. President Putin pointed out in an interview with Russia TV channel that " the financial and economic authorities in the United States, of all things, found nothing better than to allocate large amounts of money to support the population and certain businesses and economic sectors, to the tune of “$5.9 trillion."
It has become common knowledge that the policies pursued by the US administration, including quantitative easing, which led to the steady rise in the prices of foodstuffs such as wheat and vegetable oil, and raw materials such as fertilizers, oil and gas which America and her “allies” attempted to attribute to the consequences of the war and Western sanctions on Russia, with politicians justifying the doubling of energy prices for consumers by claiming it was due to the uncertainty on both the energy supplies and energy prices, the rise of which affects most commodities. However, it is also common knowledge that consumer prices are not immediately affected by geopolitical crises because these prices are linked to long-term supply contracts.

Observers of US policy and economic realities would realise that America’s decision to compel Russia to wage war on Ukraine serves a number of goals, and although they are headed by weakening Russia, uniting Europe under the leadership of the United States politically, and under the leadership of NATO militarily, eradicating the notion of an independent European force that France has been propagating, it also aims to exploit the Russian-Ukrainian war to justify some of her policies such as imposing the reconfiguration of supply chains, floating the yuan, weakening countries such as Turkey and misleading the American public opinion about the real causes of inflation from which the world is suffering.

In fact, the policy of quantitative easing implemented by the Trump and Biden administrations to inject capital to revive the economy, save the American capitalist system and get out of the recession caused by the lockdown policies to contain the pandemic are the main cause of inflation in America. What has complicated the crisis experienced by the US economy after lifting the precautionary restrictions to combat the virus is the increase in consumer demand among the masses in America with the emergence of supply problems resulting from the supply chain crisis and China’s decision to implement the “Covid Zero” policy. This deception, which preceded the war and which was initiated by the Biden administration, justifying inflation as a result of the “solid recovery” in the labour market, the “strong showing in earnings” and attributing the sharp rise in prices to the market mechanism of supply and demand, and that any rise in prices “will end soon as balance is returned to supply and demand”; this corroborates their attempts to hide the main reason, namely quantitative easing.

As for the quantitative easing policy pursued by the US administration during the pandemic, it is epitomised by the Federal Bank issuing new paper money which strengthened the presence of the dollar in the market and this resulted in increasing the amount of cash in circulation in reality, as the US Treasury issued government bonds which, instead of selling them to investors, were converted into cash by the Federal Bank which is considered akin to minting new money electronically, and the practical result of which is a “decline in the nominal value of the currency”, namely the dollar, which in turn usually leads to a decline in the purchasing power of a currency as the value of assets, materials and commodities rise.

In fact, US fiscal policy, one of the tools of which is "quantitative easing", has sought, since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and according to the statement of Federal Reserve Bank President Jerome Powell, to “focus on supporting the recovery, increase demand, create further job openings and sustain economic growth without fear of excessive inflation” since, according to him, "inflation is transitory." However, the US inflation index rose to 8.5% in April, which is the highest since 1981, after it had been 0.7% before the execution of "quantitative easing" policies during the pandemic in July 2020.

What corroborates the Federal Bank’s knowledge of the quantitative easing stalemate, which resulted from the Federal Bank Finance Committee’s decision in November 2021 to induce a “reduction in asset purchasing operations”, a decision that several analysts described as highlighting the reality of the price hike dilemma.

This American fiscal policy, which is epitomised in the centrality of the dollar in global commercial transactions, global monetary reserves, and the evaluating of the countries’ wealth, especially oil and minerals, has moved the world’s wealth from underground to the vaults of her banks. Hence, the capital flows to the dollar has enabled America from making gigantic economic strides at the global level, funding her military superiority through an annual military budget of more than $800 billion in 2021, and consolidating her unilateral dominion over the international situation.

Through the centrality of the dollar in the global financial system, America has mortgaged the fate of peoples and countries to her financial policies and administered the global financial system through the Federal Bank in accordance with her interests, and extended her influence over the countries and peoples of the world who are now fulfilling the wellbeing of the United States from their sustenance and their faculties as a tax because of their dependence on the dollar and the financial policies of the United States and her banks. Evidence of this is the 2021 Net International Investment Position Index which shows America's $18 trillion commitment to the world.

What is occurring nowadays in terms of the living affliction of most of the world’s population and the catastrophic fates awaiting them, the extent of which only Allah the Almighty knows, is mainly caused by the vicious American Capitalist system and the criminal American policies. The successive events and crises since the economic crisis in 2008 at least, and the economic and financial policies, foremost of which is the quantitative easing policy, bring us back to what happened in the period of 1968-1971, in which the United States imposed the consequences of inflation and budget deficits on the countries of the world in general, and on the European countries in particular, as a “tax
paid by countries for using the dollar” as the European countries, for their part, refused to accept the inflation in the United States resulting from its bilateral deficit, as the European countries tried to convert what they had from dollars to gold as a safe haven, but President Nixon anticipated their move and took his notorious decision to “stop converting dollars into gold on demand”.

Hence, the economic deterioration that the regimes are threatening their people with is akin to Satan threatening them with poverty, and which was exemplified in the rise in the prices of goods and services worldwide, was not the result of the Russian war, although the war formed a tributary to it. Analysts have stressed that “global food prices began to rise since the beginning of 2021, as a result of the irresponsible policy pursued by Western central banks during the past years.” Any other pretext is but an attempt to cover the real causes which are pertinent to the Capitalist financial and economic system, and the policies of quantitative easing adopted by the Federal Bank, which runs the policy of the dollar throughout the world, and which analysts have described as a “financial chemical formula" that turns something worthless into cash.

The state of uncertainty about the global economic and financial future has no way out except through the system of Islam which does not allow investing in the suffering of peoples to achieve material values. Islam has rather come as a mercy to humankind. Islam rejects money that does not derive its value from itself, such as gold and silver, and does not look after the interests of the business community and the state at the expense of the rest of the people. It does not allow what is public property to be owned by the state or individuals. The ruler in the Islamic state is not an obedient servant of the rich and the capitalists. He is rather a “shield from behind which the Muslims fights and seek protection”. Al-Faruq Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, epitomised the personality of the statesman in the best form of responsible care in the year of the famine which was preceded by nine months of drought, when people starved and crops and cattle were destroyed. He he hosted 60 thousand men and dependents who came from the desert to the city, and he commanded men to take care of their interests, until Allah ordered the sky to rain. Then Al-Faruq ordered his men to take them out to the desert and give them food and lambs.
Hence, the State in Islam is a state of the Ummah rather than individuals, families and parties. The authority of the Islamic State is derived from the Ummah rather then factions and classes, and its system is derived from the heavens; it is not determined by expedient and partisan interests or by whims and desires. It is the only system whose source of legislation does not seek expediency for itself because its origin is the Creator who does not stand in need of anything from His servants.

1 Muharram 1444h                           hizbuttahrir.org
30 July 2022

Russo-Turko-Iranian Summit 

Euro Depreciation 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Depreciation of the Euro

The slump of the European Union’s single currency has made the headlines of international financial magazines; the euro has fallen to less than one dollar, down from the rate of $1.20 a year ago. This is the lowest level in more than 20 years when the euro exchange rate against the dollar reached 0.82 cents in the autumn of 2000. Meanwhile, the US dollar exchange rate against other currencies has risen to its highest level since October 2002 to a record 108.6 on the US Dollar Index, benefiting from the rise in the interest rate undertaken by the US Federal Reserve, and from being a safe haven between currencies and capital flows resulting from the rise in the prices of energy, raw materials and agricultural products.

In order to perceive the reality of this decline, it would be imperative to understand the political reality the Eurozone is experiencing due to the war in Ukraine, the consequences of the sanctions it imposed on Russia, the mechanisms of currency exchange, and the process of determining the exchange rate and its fluctuations. It is known to those who follow financial and monetary policies that the exchange rate of the currency is affected by several factors, including the political situation of the country that owns the currency, such as its political decisions, the speed of its dealing with events, how it is affected by the security situation, and the indicators of foreign trade, as well as the consequent foreign cash transfers, the interest rate ceiling in the country that owns the currency compared to its counterparts, and the dollar’s magnetism for international investments as a safe haven in light of the security and military changes., Additionally, the exchange rate is also impacted by the fears of economic deterioration, and the decline towards economic stagnation due to the energy crisis and the turmoil of its markets, especially after the Russian decision to stop the supply of gas to Germany via Nord Stream 1 under the pretext of maintenance, knowing that it is the largest gas supply pipeline from Russia, as it transports annually about 55 billion cubic meters of gas to Germany. Russia’s move was described by French President Emmanuel Macron as using energy as a “weapon of war”, as Russia's shutdown of Nord Stream 1 threatens Germany's winter preparations amid fears of a permanent gas shutdown. BNP Bank explained to Reuters that the 4.5% fall in the euro-dollar exchange rate on 27 April 27 2022 was caused by Moscow's announcement that it would stop transporting gas to Poland and Bulgaria.

For the record, the US Federal Reserve raised the interest rate for the dollar as a hedge against an inflation flareup and signalled an expected third hike in September. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank faces the fears that the economy of member states will slide into recession in light of the economic and political facts that resulted from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This influenced the US Federal Reserve’s decision not to raise the interest rate ceiling, which in turn prompted a number of speculative monetary portfolios to switch from the euro to the dollar in search of higher returns following the rise in the interest rate in the United States.

In fact, the various paper currencies in circulation nowadays are different commodities traded in the global money markets, which “transact more than $6.6 trillion per day”, not for their own sake, but for their ability to purchase other commodities, or for being a safe haven in situations of financial and political turmoil. The value of the monies is estimated by the amount of their purchasing power; That is, the extent to which a person can obtain goods or services, or the amount of their moral power and the correlation of their assessment with the strength of the economy of the country that bears its name, such as the US dollar. 

Hence, the exchange rate is the result of supply and demand i.e. the need of one of the two parties for the currency that is in the hands of the other party), and this is often generated by the monetary relationship resulting from foreign trade or the imbalance of the accounts balances of countries because a country must pay the price of the goods in the currency of the country from which they are imported or in the currency it accepts. The value of trade and service exchanges between America and the Eurozone reached a trillion dollars in 2020, and the exchange of the two currencies is the most liquid and exchanged between global currencies.

On the other hand, the exchange rate is the outcome of a variation in the prices of goods in the country that has issued the currency, and if the price level in one country rises higher than in another due to an increase in money, for instance, the exchange rate must change between them; thus, the external value of the currency of the country in which the prices rose will decrease. And since the seven developed countries are suffering from the crisis of rising prices, their currencies are all subject to decline. However, America's monetary policy, which has turned the dollar into the first reserve currency in the world, representing more than 61% of the total hard currency reserves of the countries of the world, and since the exchange rate of all currencies is linked to it, in addition to being a tool covering the currencies whose price is determined in the light of the percentage of this coverage, as well as the correlation of the price of natural resources, especially oil and gold, with the dollar, is what generated the world’s need for the dollar and its use to pay for huge costly oil purchases as an indispensable commodity, in addition to the prices of foreign trade and loans granted in dollars; all this is in addition to feeding the central banks' reserves of the world's first currency, and the Federal Reserve's increase in the interest rate, which enabled the dollar to avoid the fall of its exchange rate.

When the euro was launched, some observers speculated that it might be able to compete with the dollar and undermine its centrality in the global financial system after the (euro) had become the currency of invoicing and trade exchange between member states for a collective economy equivalent to 16 trillion dollars, and a volume of international trade transactions equal to 15% of the global total, as It accounted for 23% of global reserves. However, the eurozone suffered several setbacks from which it did not recover, apart from Germany. The public debt crisis in Greece almost led to a financial collapse in the eurozone and resulted in the speculations of the US hedge portfolios in the debt crisis for both Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and Ireland, and a rise in the levels of government debt and unemployment rates.

However, the political conditions and the crises that America concocted during the past decade did not help the euro achieve a balanced level of competition with the dollar, especially the Russian-Ukrainian war, and the harnessing of the Covid pandemic and its economic fallouts, in addition to inflation. This may lead to economic stagnation in the eurozone in light of the narrow economic options before the EU member states, especially since addressing these issues is not brought about with purely economic solutions, but rather requires political decisions. The Ukrainian crisis, which angered Putin, and his targeting of the European economy in order to deepen the dispute between the EU countries and weaken their alliance with the US, is the best example of this narrative.

He means that the euro’s fall against the dollar does not reflect reality, as the economic fundamentals indicate that the current exchange rate does not represent the true value of the euro, which they estimate between 1.1 and 11.1 dollars per euro, according to analysts. The fact is that investment portfolio managers hedge against the consequences of political crises and the failure of the European political decision-making, one of the most prominent factors that led to the exodus of capital from the euro to the dollar, through those operations carried out by portfolio managers to stabilize the exchange rate to preserve the value of investments, which resulted in a decrease in the value of investments in the euro.

"Our analysis has shown that flows rather than fundamentals may have been the key driver behind the euro’s drop," a currency strategist at BNP Bank indicated during an interview with Reuters. He means the euro’s fall against the dollar does not reflect reality, as the basic economic indicators suggest that the current exchange rate does not represent the true value of the euro, which they estimate between 1.10 to 1.11 dollars per euro, according to analysts.

Therefore, ending the crisis of the euro’s decline depends on restoring market confidence by resuming gas supplies through Nord Stream-1 and maintaining uninterrupted supply, since the alternative to it is to continue buying gas from America and from areas under American influence in dollars, instead of buying it in euros from Russia; this would lead to an increase in the flow from the euro to the dollar, and thus, weakening the value of the euro; US gas shipments to Europe reached a record high, up 30% in the month of February alone and America is expected to account for 22% of total global LNG shipments. In the meantime, Europe's economic crisis will remain as long as the Europeans rely on America in facing European national security challenges and are unable to resolve issues related to Europe's interests, especially in the energy sector. Europe’s main security challenge is reflected in the sanctions imposed on Russia, which America dictated to the EU, and which have had a negative impact on the eurozone; it is also threatening to incite public opinion in Europe against the standpoints of European governments vis-à-vis the Ukrainian crises as a result of inflation and increase in prices.

As for the measures of the European Central Bank, which involved raising interest rates to meet the challenges of inflation and price hikes, and to contain popular discontent, after it had been hesitant about the amount of interest, due to the apprehensions towards its negative economic fallouts, such as reducing the funds in the market and the withering of the economic process in the capitalist system, as it relies on lending to stimulate investment in machinery, equipment and employment, such measures, although necessary, do not fundamentally tackle the European economic situation unless Europe becomes completely independent from America, and unless she rids herself of US influence on the decisions of the EU, at both economic and military levels.

We conclude from all of this that although the reasons for the decline of the euro are characteristically economic, their plane and causes are however purely political. This indicates the level of subordination of European leaders to American volition. It is not expected that Europe will emerge safe, economically and security-wise, unless her willpower, which is subject to Washington's dictates, is liberated. The global economy will not be upright and the peoples of the world will not be reassured about the global economy and financial system unless they return to the gold standard in the global financial system, and unless Islam is restored to the reality of life and the state that presents its civilisational model and its fair systems, and induces the countries of the world to adopt its principles, values and leadership to put an end to America’s hegemony over international decision-making.

24 Thil Hijjah 1443h                         hizbuttahrir.org
23 July 2022

Biden’s Middle East Tour 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Biden’s Middle East Tour

President Biden arrived in Jeddah from “Israel on Friday 15 July. A statement by the White House quoted Biden as saying he would be the first US President to fly from "Israel" to Jeddah in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, describing Saudi’s decision to open her airspace to all civilian aircrafts as historic, especially those from and to "Israel".

The visit was preceded by the communiqué of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority stipulating opening the kingdom’s airspace for all air carriers that meet the requirements of the authority for overflying. Biden described the decision of Saudi to open her airspace by saying “This is the first tangible step in the path of what I hope will eventually be a broader normalization of relations" adding, “Saudi Arabia’s decision can help build momentum toward Israel’s further integration into the region, including with Saudi Arabia.” Meanwhile, "Israeli" prime minister, Yair Lapid, said on Twitter "Today is a historic day. After intense behind the scenes diplomacy with Saudi Arabia and the United States, Saudi airspace will now be open to Israeli airlines."

It is worth mentioning in this context that US presidents’ foreign trips are conventionally linked to national security; and as it is known, the security of "Israel", oil, and shipping routes through which the supply chains in the Middle East pass, are at the heart of the US interests and national security; hence, the aims of the visit and Biden’s statement were not hidden in this regard.

As for the security of "Israel", the visit was preceded by several arrangements centred around its integration into the region in the security and military aspect under the cover of the Iranian threat, and reproducing the "Israeli" role in facing the forthcoming challenges pertinent to China and Russia, a role "Israel" played during the Cold War, i.e., reactivating the "Israeli" geopolitical position as an advanced military base allowing the US to protect her interests in the Middle East, to hedge the consequences of a proxy military confrontation strategy with Russia, and perhaps with China later, with the aim of weakening and blackmailing them, containing their aspirations, tightening the grip over Europe through her interests and energy security which the US is endeavouring to secure its supply from the Middle East and reduce Europe’s dependence on Russia’s energy; this could in turn accelerate the signing of the Iranian nuclear deal, and resetting the Libyan security situation, the omens of which are reflected in forming the board of directors of the National Oil Corporation (NOC) under the chairmanship of Ferhat bin Qadara, and in reopening all the oilfields and seaports, and lifting the sanctions imposed on Venezuela to increase oil production and curb price increases in the US to win the American electorate over in the forthcoming midterm elections.

In this sense, the eagerness of American presidents to visit Saudi is not a tribute to its rulers as much as it is a message to rival countries not to come close to the Gulf, and a message of deterrence and warning to the people of the region not to undermine the interests of the United States regarding the security of the Gulf and "Israel". The visit was also designed to reassure the Europeans regarding their energy concerns, to which bin Salman responded by increasing oil production to shore up America’s efforts in maintaining the alliance against Russia, especially as the rift over European sanctions on Russia is still raging between EU countries; Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Friday 15 July that the EU “shot itself in the lungs” with ill-considered economic sanctions on Russia, which, unless rolled back, risk destroying the European economy. On the other hand, Putin is attempting through his meeting with Erdogan and Ebrahim Raisi to win Turkey and Iran over through the gateway of their interests in Syria, and to impede America’s efforts to disengage Bashar Assad and attract him through the Arab states and to restructure the National Coalition and the Syrian Negotiations Commission whose new president and some opposition forces hinted at the possibility of jumping on the "peace" bandwagon, especially since the Turkish and Iranian presidents are attempting to achieve personal gains in the midst of the US-Russian conflict such as the Iranian Oil Minister’s flirtation with America recently at the Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference in Azerbaijan and his saying that Tehran “would triple the amount of its oil in the global markets,” while Erdogan is trying to zero his problems with Arab countries, reinforce his military presence in Syria and weaken the Syrian Democratic Forces at a time when Russia facilitated the understandings of Bashar Assad and the Kurdish forces to stand up to the threat posed by the Turkish regime.

As for the issue of Palestine, the PA leaders and Arab chieftains are still shamelessly selling illusions to the people of the region. All the statements of Biden and Abbas that addressed the issue of Palestine confirmed that the two-state solution was just a theme under the guise of which the regional solution is being imposed, namely integrating "Israel" into the region, and deferring the final formula of the solution, and making it dependent on a change in the "Israeli" rightwing public opinion, and its acceptance of a Palestinian authority drawn on paper to manage the population with Jordan while "Israel" retains the land.

This is what is corroborated by Mahmoud Abbas's statement that the two-state solution may not be obtainable in the future. It is also corroborated by Biden's remarks that the two-state solution “can seem so far away”; this is because what is happening on the ground such as the continued occupation, the increase in Jewish settlements, the marginalisation of the issue in favour of a regional solution, and the restructuring taking place on the Jordanian side to absorb refugees through the outputs of the Royal Committee to Modernise the Political System, including coining the term “comprehensive national identity” does not fit into the two-state solution; in other words, it does not occasion a viable and geographically connected Palestinian state, as much as it paves the way for dissolving the issue in a joint Jordanian-Palestinian formula.

By this token, the aims of Biden’s visit to the region are summed up in tackling the repercussions of his international strategy pertinent to Russia and China, the most important of which is securing oil resources to cover the shortage of Russian energy; the Netherlands has started raising the production of coal power, Austria reopened a coal-fired power station and France has equipped a coal power plant in anticipation of the shortage. And in the context of the energy crisis, the BBC quoted Congressperson Brad Sherman as saying that “Saudi Arabia increasing its supply of oil to the market would save lives,” adding that "the price of oil means people die in poor countries. It raises the price of food and fertiliser, and it means people die by the hundreds of thousands, not just from starvation but also from the disease the malnourished tend to acquire." The visit also aims to resume what Donald Trump started regarding the regional solution and the Arab-“Israeli” alliance under the pretext of the Iranian threat. Biden said, “our intelligence and military experts warned that the region was dangerously pressurized…. We have to counter Russia’s aggression, put ourselves in the best possible position to outcompete China, and work for greater stability in a consequential region of the world.”

This visit, during which he met with the countries of the alliance and joint defence to be established with the participation of Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and the Gulf states, was preceded by a meeting of representatives of the commanders of the "Israeli", Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari armed forces in Sharm el-Sheikh, to discuss the strategy to combating the common threats to national security under US sponsorship, and by the statement of "Israeli" defence minister Benny Gantz pertinent to the preparations for establishing the Middle East Air Defense Alliance (MEAD), under the auspices of Washington.

Other aims of the visit include supporting Iraqi prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in downsizing Iran’s surrogates in Iraq, encouraging king Abdullah to continue restructuring the regime in line with the endeavour to liquidate the file of the refugees, and exhorting bin Salman to take steps towards normalisation and alliance with "Israel". Perhaps Biden's announcement today of his intention to withdraw the US peacekeeping forces from the islands of Tiran and Sanafir would help opening a direct negotiation channel between Saudi Arabia and "Israel". Furthermore, the aim of the visit is to exhort bin Salman to continue uprooting Islam from the lands of al Haramayn, control his comportment, orchestrate his relations with the countries of the region and overseas, and assign to him the task of overseeing the “Syrian opposition”, settling the Yemeni file, in parallel with the progress in the Iranian nuclear file, and bringing Iran back to her functional square. In this context, Biden said prior to his visit in an article carrying warning messages to the rulers of the region, “we reversed the blank-check policy we inherited”, and that during his visit (to Saudi), his aim “will be to strengthen a strategic partnership going forward that’s based on mutual interests and responsibilities, while also holding true to fundamental American values.” He also showed remarkable support for "Israeli" prime minister Lapid since he deemed him more pragmatic and secular, portraying him as a dove of peace, in addition to the I2U2 initiative that expresses the Greater Middle East, and luring Jewish businessmen with the expected economic prospects as part of attempts to encourage "Israeli" public opinion to show the necessary flexibility regarding the "peace process”.

There is no doubt all of this would redirect the American policy in the region, regulate it according to America’s international priorities in the midst of the tussle with Russia and China, tighten the grip on Europe and serve the Biden administration in tackling inflation and the anticipated economic downturn, in light of the approaching date of the midterm elections.

As for the people of the region, they will not be able to change the policy of the United States or influence it except by threatening the American interests, since America and the West will not change their colonialist policy unless the price and the cost are too high for them. This will only be achieved by uprooting the functional regimes and the collaborating rulers who have sold the region to its enemies in exchange for their continuance in power.

17 Thil Hijjah 1443h                                                    hizbuttahrir.org
16 July 2022

Boris Johnson’s Resignation 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Boris Johnson’s Resignation

Observers acquainted with Boris Johnson's political record would not be surprised by the series of events that have recently topped the British and international newspapers, especially those preceding his resignation.

Since the beginning of his political and media career, Boris Johnson has been an opportunist in dealing with events and issues, as he is considered to be extremely skilful in reading the political scene and riding the waves of politics and steering them towards building a populist political aura for himself with the aim of reaching the premiership. These components in his personality played a significant role in selecting him as a man for the period in which he acceded to power to rescue Britain from the failure and political paralysis which resulted from the disunion within Parliament, and the fragmentation of the political milieu following the Brexit referendum results and Theresa May’s failure to lead the party and complete the exit deal with the European Union.

It is worth mentioning in this context that Johnson, who played a prominent role in the Brexit camp, had prepared two articles for publication before announcing his position. One of them was in support of the EU’s membership while the other was in support of Brexit. Then his political acumen led him to go along with the American-oriented atmosphere and the media mobilisation towards leaving the EU, especially since the Brexit camp was lacking the element of political celebrity which would enable it to lend some kind of credibility to its manifesto; this was corroborated by an opinion poll prepared by the Guardian newspaper, which showed that the voting trends of the British electorate were dictated by Prime Minister Cameron (44%) and then the Mayor of London Boris Johnson ( 32%).

This reality gave Johnson a platform to attract the British rightwing and bring it under his banner, while the Brexiteers found its way in Boris Johnson, who was presented to the public and the political milieu as a brand, namely,“He’s a celebrity. He’s a performer."

Boris Johnson was then favourite to replace Prime Minister David Cameron after the Brexiteers won, but former Levelling Up Secretary and Johnson’s partner in the Brexit camp, Michael Gove, stated at the eleventh hour that Johnson was “not capable of uniting that team and leading the party and the country,” and instead threw his hat in the ring, which resulted in the vote of Conservative parliamentarians with the right to elect the party's new leader going towards his campaign and leaving Boris Johnson without any supporters; this reflected a degree of distrust of the "Brexit" camp from among Conservative Party members of Johnson's promises made during his electoral campaign, and a degree of apprehension vis-à-vis the path he would take to get Britain out of the European Union; it also reflected that the time to hand Johnson the premiership was not ripe yet. Subsequently, the process was geared towards electing Theresa May as prime minister in an attempt to achieve the largest possible gains for Britain. However, after three years of attempts to reach a compromise, and amid the political divisions in London, Theresa May lost the American support which was reflected in Donald Trump’s behaviour towards her; she also lost the confidence of her party and resigned after Gove and Johnson had resigned from her cabinet. This paved the way for Johnson the “performer” to assume his role. Johnson enjoyed huge support from the deep state in the shape of a sweeping attack by the security services on the Labour Party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn, and leaked reports about his antisemitism, in addition to targeting the political manifesto of the Labour Party and deeming it a return to the EU and a betrayal of the vote “Leave”. This resulted in Johnson scooping the largest parliamentary majority since the Blair era of 2001 and battering the wall of the Labour Party that bulwarked the northern British constituencies.

However, Johnson’s “Levelling Up” policy towards the north, which involves reinvesting in the area and imposing a special tax to finance the costs of healthcare and social security for the elderly, was rebuffed by the political forces and public opinion, as social security policies and benefits consume more than £207 billion each year, i.e., 60% of the state’s expenditure.

The objection to Johnson’s policies is noticed from the tussles within his party, the departure of important figures from his cabinet, and the race of the candidates to replace him and their focusing on tax policies which would reduce the impact of Johnson’s policies.

In fact, the pace at which most of the former party leaders, including former prime ministers and cabinet ministers, distanced themselves from Johnson has revealed that he was only a man of a period with the task of achieving a complete exit from the EU, providing services pertinent to America's strategy towards Russia in the Ukrainian war, and pushing European states into the agenda of severe sanctions against Russia.

As for the repercussions of his standpoints pertinent to the domestic situation, he was unable to address them and bring the state out of its economic dilemmas. He rather faced a host of scandals and ethical questions about his violations and some of his ministers’ violations of Covid lockdown rules, and about corruption issues involving members of the Conservative Party. Moreover, his party lost several of its members, and lost in the local elections early last month. This compelled him to hide behind the agenda of Brexit, and play the chord of the Northern Ireland Protocol to win over his supporters. However, his clash with the Europeans regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol and his attempt to breach the American priorities to achieve personal gains, thus evoking America’s wrath, was a losing bet. This is because the crisis in Ukraine generated new priorities for the United States, including maintaining the unity of the Western alliance, and Johnson's behaviour and style no longer fulfilled America’s interests, especially with the fragmentation of the Conservatives’ ranks which could undermine their political weight and undermine the American priorities. Hence, the United States had to do away with Johnson. This was corroborated by the clear diplomatic message the White House sent through a senior State Department adviser who said that the Northern Ireland issue should not lead to any division within NATO so as not to give Putin the pretext to undermine the alliance America spent months in building. Moreover, several politicians from among the Conservative Party slammed Johnson’s personal approach, his failure to meet the pledges he had signed as a prime minister through the international treaties concluded with the EU, and his desire to circumvent them for political purposes. It is deduced from this that Johnson’s mission has come to an end and that he has contributed to speeding it up thanks to his miscalculations and gambles, his harnessing of the Russo-European crisis, and his significant services to Washington in the Ukrainian file to achieve a breakthrough in the Northern Irish file and reap some expedient and political gains on the domestic plane.

The US exasperation at Johnson became clear during the G7 Summit in Germany at the beginning of the month, where Biden snubbed him, contrary to the tradition between the US and Britain on the grounds of the “special relationship”. Perhaps Biden’s decision to snub Johnson at the G7 acted as a clear message to the British political forces stipulating that they should speed up his removal. Hence, the White House was indifferent in its statements pertinent to Johnson’s resignation, despite his flatteries towards Biden, such as describing his victory as a “breath of fresh air, and despite working with him shoulder to shoulder to execute the US agenda in Europe and East Asia, his partnership in the AUKUS deal, and the US-Japan Security Treaty, through which America is endeavouring to militarise Japan by amending the 9th article of the Japanese constitution, especially that the credentials of the Liberal Party have rocketed following the assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe; also, despite hosting Biden’s first overseas visit by organising the resigning of the Atlantic Charter and the G7 Summit, the White House announced that it “respectfully declined to weigh in on Mr Johnson’s troubles…internal British political matter that is out-of-bounds for public comment”. This is corroborated also by the statement of Joe Biden in which he did not mention Johnson by name, but contented himself by saying he looked forward to continuing America’s “close cooperation with the government of the United Kingdom”, stressing that “our alliance with the United Kingdom continues to be strong, our special relationship with the people will continue to endure, none of that changes.”

As for Russia’s decision to expose her relationship with Johnson, it falls under Russia’s endeavour to shore up the German and French standpoint towards Britain, considering that it acts as America’s Trojan Horse in Europe. Hence, his exposing falls within the endeavour to dilute the British role, exactly like what the British press did with Germany and France with regard to supplying Russia with weapons, and within the support given to the British Labour Party to fan the flames of the struggle between the two main parties in Britain, thus weakening the Conservative Party and its men in favour of the Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, amid the waves of scandals and corruption that have dealt the Conservatives a heavy blow, knowing that Starmer has built his reputation on being as pure as the driven snow.

In a nutshell, most of the British political milieu is infiltrated by America and shackled by the American willpower; this is corroborated by the British policies which are concordant with the American standpoints, and even by some of the British newspapers which admit that Britain is proceeding in the American orbit.

16 Thil Hijjah 1443h                                                                hizbuttahrir.org
15 July 2022

Controversy of the Constitution in Tunisia 

Fallouts of Russo-Ukrainian War Following Putin’s Speech  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Fallouts of Russo-Ukrainian War Following Putin’s Speech

In a political move aimed at accentuating Russia’s position in the world’s economy and her possession of natural resources that Western countries could not do without, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech during his participation in the plenary session of the 25th Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday, June 17, in the presence and participation of leaders and presidents from more than 69 countries, including the Chinese and Egyptian presidents, who attended the entire speech remotely. Putin stressed in his speech “Russia’s vision” that aims at changing the “unipolar world”; he also said the world could not be reduced to the EU states and the US, and mentioned his country’s experience in overcoming sanctions, adding that his country has managed to make the sanctions backfire on those who had imposed it as the West ended up facing price increases, downturns and a stifling economic crisis which could be the spark for domestic changes in the West.

This indicates that Putin’s gamble of reaching a diplomatic solution and a safe exit from the crises hinges on the restlessness of the Euro-American allies under the pressing need for energy. German Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck, told a press conference “We are facing a gas crisis. Gas has become a rare commodity.” In a message addressed to domestic public opinion, Putin dismissed the delusions of the Western alliance against his country and elaborated the components of Russia’s strength despite the harsh sanctions imposed by the West which led to the withdrawal of most western investors from the Russian market, the expulsion of Russia from SWIFT and the freezing of some of Russia’s assets in the West. He stressed that the sanctions targeting Russia and the Russian currency in particular were turned into an element of strength as the ruble became as strong as ever; he also blamed world inflation and price increases on western monetary policies and on the West’s attempts to isolate Russia from the global economy.

The Chinese President, for his part addressed the Forum virtually and expounded China’s vision, which does not align with the Russian vision on the economic aspect due to China’s need for trade and open investment to nurture her economy. He called for a “true multilateralism” and an “open world economy” and for making “global development more balanced, coordinated and inclusive.” He added that the world needed to “reject attempts at separation, supply disruption, unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure, remove trade barriers, keep global industrial and supply chains stable, tackle the worsening food and energy crises and revive the world economy.”

The two presidents expressed harmony on the political aspect through their telephone conversation; The Chinese president said “China is also willing to work with Russia to promote solidarity and cooperation among emerging market countries and developing nations, and push for the development of the international order and global governance towards a more just and reasonable direction.” Meanwhile, Putin was quoted as saying that Russia supported the world security initiative proposed by the Chinese side, and objected to any meddling in China’s domestic affairs by harnessing the so-called issues of Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, among others, as a pretext.

At a time when his country is engaged for the third month in a war in Ukraine to achieve a host of political aims, the most important of which is Ukraine’s neutrality and preventing her from joining NATO due to the threat it would pose to Russian national security, Putin announced through a “questions and answers session” with the Kazak President, Kassym Tokayev, who seemed averse to Putin’s call for the right of self-determination of Russian communities living in the former Soviet republics, that “the situation will return to normal, sooner or later”, adding that with regard to Ukraine’s EU membership “Unlike NATO, the European Union is not a military organisation or a military-political bloc. So, we have always said, and I have always said that our position is consistent and clear: we have no objections. It is a sovereign decision of any country whether it wants to join an economic association and it is for the economic association to decide whether it accepts new members.” His words carried an implicit warning to the EU against continuing to submit to the US, knowing that he had previously accused Europe of having completely lost her sovereignty.

Putin’s speech at the Forum is deemed an attempt by Russia to underscore her international weight after she had faced military difficulties and political isolation. Despite having destroyed the Ukrainian infrastructure, as she did in Syria, she however failed in her bid to impose her dominance over the capital Kiev and change the Ukrainian regime; she was compelled to focus her efforts on dominating the Donbas province, i.e., eastern Ukraine. This could expose her to a lengthy war of attrition if she failed to reach a diplomatic solution, especially as the Ukrainian President, incited by America and Britain, rejects any solution on the grounds of land for peace.

As for the possibility of reaching a diplomatic solution, it depends on the American aims for which Ukraine was offered to the Russian Bear as a sacrificial lamb; and it also hinges on the threats posed by the continuation of the war and its repercussions on the US-European alliance against Russia, considering that reshaping American foreign alliances is at the heart of the US strategy which has been repeatedly stressed by President Biden, his Secretary of State and National Security Adviser; in fact, Biden reiterated it two days ago at the G7 Summit by saying “Putin has been counting on it from the beginning that somehow the NATO and the G7 would splinter. But we haven't and we're not going to…”.

In reality, America wants to: ensure that Europe is undertaking practical steps towards doing away with her dependence on Russia in the energy sector, dismantle Europe and Russia’s interests, orchestrate their relationship on the principle of animosity between them, dissipate the notion of an independent European force and a united political standpoint, ensure that NATO remains the only option in guaranteeing the security of the eastern European and Baltic states, and not to bank on France and Germany whose political approach is built on their economic and security interests, which are linked to Russian energy.

It is clear from Putin’s speech and his conversation with the Chinese President that he is waging a psychological war on the West in an attempt to undermine the confidence of other states in the policy pursued by America in leading the world, and to insinuate to the European states that their economic and security interests lie with Russia rather than America.

Hence, Putin’s actions are geared towards undermining confidence in the world order and mobilise states against American unilateralism; however, her influence necessitates proposing an attractive alternative to the American model. However, no one, not even China, thinks that Russia has either the alternative vision that compensates for the European and American markets or the attractive charisma to let other states view it as a role model worthy of rallying around, and thus sacrificing their interest, evoking the wrath of America and incurring the inconsequence of doing away with the legacy of American singlehanded dominion of the international situation.

America anticipated this attempt by focusing her campaign on “western alliance” which includes all the countries adopting the values of democracy, freedom and free trade, and working towards establishing a worldwide alliance including countries from Asia, Europe and north America.

The West has attempted to topple the regime of Putin through economic sanctions, international isolation and soaring inflation to evoke the apprehensions of the masses and incite them to rebel and get rid of Putin’s regime. However, Putin settled the domestic situation through his security services, who quelled the protests against the war, and by portraying the war as being necessary and vital for Russia’s security and future and describing it as a national war targeting the Russian identity.

It is also clear that Putin has relinquished the option of toppling Ukrainian President Zelensky and occupying Kiev; focusing his efforts on east and south Ukraine has provided him with the means of a safe exit out of the crisis and the means of resistance in the face of America’s strategy of perpetuating the war and depleting Russian economy. He could now harness the perpetuation of the war in deepening the European energy crisis to weaken the Euro-American alliance and soaring inflation and prices of world commodities to corroborate Russia’s international standing. It has now become difficult to defeat him despite the huge support given to the Ukrainian President by the US and Britain. The visit of European leaders to Kiev on 16 June, granting candidate status for membership in the European Union to Ukraine, the UK prime minister’s announcement that his country was prepared to train thousands of Ukrainian military personnel and America’s delivery of long-range missile systems to Ukraine, in addition to Lithuania’s provocation of Russia by blocking the transit of EU-sanctioned goods through its territory to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and America’s reemphasis of NATO’s Article 5 in the defence of Lithuania, all this is but an American message to Russia and the Europeans, in which America is persisting on shaping the Russo-European relationships on the grounds of animosity, and entrenching the security climate according to the American strategy which has borne fruit in the shape of luring Sweden and Finland into NATO, and undermining France and Germany’s ability to attract the European states to their rank, a narrative recently acknowledged by President Macron who has been stripped of leadership even in France as his party lost most of the parliamentary seats to his opponents in the far-right.

27 Thil Qi’dah 1443h                                                                      hizbuttahrir.org
27 June 2022

Liberals’ Ghoulish Attitude on Doctrinal Identity of the People in Jordan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Liberals’ Ghoulish Attitude towards the Doctrinal Identity of the People in Jordan

Society in Jordan is bearing the brunt of a bitter tussle between two movements, one being an intruder in the Ummah and representing a small group of the so-called intellectuals of the liberal movement supported by the authorities, and the other being the highbred movement of the Ummah which has constantly been provoked by the liberals to break its resolve via various channels such as the media, educational curricula and the ministry of waqfs.

The liberalist movement, emboldened by foreign powers, the security services and legislation, is in a race against time to impose its approach on society, thus placing itself on a collision course with the religion of the Ummah both intellectually and emotionally, by stereotyping the movement of the Ummah as sometimes being the Muslim Brotherhood, other times as Salafist and other times as Daesh. This is what explains discarding the conservative conventional leaderships from the positions of decision-making. It seems the deadline given to the liberalist movement to impose its approach is very short, not exceeding a few years, to achieve what is demanded of it by America and through international institutions in targeting the Ummah’s Aqeedah and her thought, be it the IMF, the World Bank, human rights organisations, the CEDAW Convention, the recommendations of Western thinktanks such as the Carnegie Corporation or the RAND Corporation, which is sponsored by the US army, with the aim of uprooting the religious aspect of society and anchoring liberalism with its broad concepts such as democracy, general freedoms and whatever emanates from them in terms of personal freedom, extramarital relationships, homosexuality and the like. This tinkering with the doctrinal identity of society was reflected in the inclination of the Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System, headed by former prime minister Samir al-Rifai, towards the recommendations of the extremist liberalist forces, which was exposed by Dr Hassan Barari after he resigned from the Committee.

Observers of this tussle would deduce that the work towards anchoring liberalism has been underway and barefacedly in an unprecedented manner. Hence, what is coveted is changing the identity of society and transform it into a liberalist one within the context of liquidating the Aqeedah of the Ummah, and within the context of centralising the “comprehensive national identity” to liquidate the Palestinian and Jordanian issue to the advantage of the Jewish identity of the usurping entity. Irrespective of the reliability of what has been attributed to US Ambassador Henry Wooster pertaining to the notion of “New Jordan”, and the widespread controversy it evoked at the time, what is occurring in Jordan in terms of intellectual and political structuring corroborates the substance of the “New Jordan” notion, which has turned into a different Jordan and is more fluid, corrupt and alien to its religion. Suffice to realise that there exists a new Jordan being manufactured by the liberals, from the tweet of the head of the Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System, Samir al-Rifai, in which he said, “What is required is an Arab version of glasnost with perestroika starting with a fresh concept for the relationships between the state and the citizen”, and to realise that the outputs of the Royal Committee to Modernize the Political System and the unfolding events on the ground epitomise an ideological and political project aimed at altering society’s identity and shaping it culturally and politically in a manner leading to liquidating the issue of Palestine and integrating the Zionist entity in the region through the vehicle of economic, military and security cooperation and the Abrahamic religion.

Furthermore, the accelerating changes and events the Jordanian scene has been witnessing, and which have been surrounding the current Jordanian political situation, have been laden with indications with regard to the timing of Henry Wooster’s appointment, especially with regard to what the Trump administration had been undertaking to liquidate the Palestinian issue and integrate "Israel" into the region; this necessitates doing away with the Palestinian demographic burden, which is the responsibility of the occupation, until Jordan becomes responsible for it within the framework of a new national identity, which in turn necessitates reshaping society, the state and the identity to facilitate the acceptance and integration of the Jews in the region, and their living therein as part of it rather than as intruders.

Hence, this intense race by the liberal movement to impose its approach on the people of Jordan is not surprising, even if it were on the receiving end of the masses’ resentment; the approach involves proceeding with changing the doctrinal and political identity systematically as a prelude to effacing all that is pertinent or insinuates a relationship with religion such as the state’s recent targeting of the Qur’an teaching centres at a time when concerts of debauchery take place in al-Aqabah. This proves the animosity the oppressive liberalist clique harbours towards the people of Jordan and the culture and traditions of the Ummah that are derived from the Islamic Shari’ah. For the record, advancing the neoliberalist agenda has not come with the new US ambassador; the Jordanian authorities have been executing it since 2005 under the theme of “Culture of Hope” with the backing of the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Therefore, the change America is coveting and the liberal movement is racing against time to execute, is pertinent to society’s identity, and the shape and identity of the state. Faced with this malignant conniving against the people of Jordan, their Aqeedah, values and Shari’ah, the men should brace themselves to succour their religion; otherwise, corruption and ruin will settle in their homes. It is remarked that the people of Jordan’s capitulation to the projects corrupting their doctrine and values , and the political conspiracies, is not down to lack of power and incapability to tackle the criminal liberalist clique that controls people’s fate, but, rather, because of negligence, lethargy, acquiescence, reversal of values and the search for personal safety; all this is due to the failure to glorify Allah the Almighty and His sanctities, and the obliviousness towards His commands and prohibitions. It is also due to the collusion of the civil servants, who are detached from their religion and their folks, in executing the foreign dictates, the slackness of the popular, tribal and academic dynamic forces who made the highest point of their opposition to the regime not exceeding complaints, resentments and paper communiqués, and those who are oblivious to the vilification of their religion but very active when it comes to protesting against a rise in the price of bread, poultry and fuel; and even this does not stimulate them anymore due to their own disgrace. If they moved, they would confine their action to what vents the anger of the masses in the shape of protests which would only achieve publicity for them. With such authority and such opposition, and with the absence of an organised popular leadership, people should seize the initiative and call the officials and public figures to account for their slackness and capitulation; people should treat them with resentment and disdain every time they deserve to be treated as such. People should raise their voices and demand the rule of Shari’ah that gives them life.

“O you who have believed! Respond to the call of Allah and the Messenger whenever he calls you unto that which will give you life.” [al-Anfal-24]

22 Thil Qi’dah 1443h
22 June 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

Regional Political Dynamism: Integrating "Israel" 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Regional Political Dynamism in the Area

A sequence of events with diverse political dimensions took place in the past month. All such events however intersect with a central issue, namely arranging the paperwork for integrating "Israel" into the region in the security and military aspect now that the locomotive of its economic and cultural integration has departed from the gate of the Emirates and its political integration through the normalisation agreements with Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, and what is being heralded in terms of normalisation with Saudi by means of the latter’s expected decision to allow "Israeli" airlines to fly over the kingdom’s airspace to the Emirates, or perhaps transporting the hajis from the 1948 territories to Saudi, and through the file of Tiran and Sanafir islands which are expected to initiate a direct communication channel between Saudi and "Israel", especially since the issue of the two islands falls within the security arrangements for the entire region in the context of confronting the alleged Iranian threat, the tackling of which warrants a military and security bloc between "Israel" and the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan.

In his interview with retired Lieutenant General Herbert MacMaster, who hosts the programme Battlegrounds, at Hoover Institution, Stanford University, king Abdullah II warned of a Russian vacuum in Syria which Iran would be striving to fill, and consequently, fanning the flames of the “drugs war” and reopening the floodgates for the “threat of terrorism”. And during the past two weeks, "Israel" has intensified its attacks and provocations against Iran, assassinating some Iranian officials including officers of the Revolutionary Guards, and pounding Damascus Airport and taking it out of service under the pretext that it was used by Iran and the Syrian regime to ship weapons to Hezbollah.

Moreover, in a remarkable and advanced step, "Israel" deployed a radar system in the Emirates and Bahrain which prompted a threat by the commander of the Iranian Air Force, Ali Reza Sabahi, who warned of the fallouts for the security of the Gulf States.

The Israeli move came in tandem with America's withdrawal of air defense systems from Saudi, despite the repeated attacks by the Houthi militia on Saudi and the Emirates, as well as what is known as the "Tanker War".

This suggests the presence of a prior US-Israeli-Gulf arrangement for Israel to fill the security vacuum, integrate it into the regional security and justify Arab-“Israeli” normalisation and alliance; and this is the file Biden will be carrying on his visit to Saudi to meet with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the Gulf States.

It is noted that all of this is occurring in light of the exaggeration of the Iranian threat and the faltering of the negotiations’ process on the Iranian nuclear file in Vienna, which is being orchestrated to the tune of the progress in the Arab-“Israeli” normalisation and alliance process which hinges on the pretext of the Iranian threat. It is also occurring in light of the Jordanian-Israeli agreements on “water for electricity”, power grid interconnections and the gas pipeline from Egypt through Jordan and Syria to Lebanon, and in light of the talk in recent days about a Jordanian ten-year economic vision which includes establishing a regional transportation network and signing major economic agreements between the Emirates and "Israel", in addition to the political stalemate in Iraq and Lebanon due to the crackdown on the political forces linked to Iran, and the recent agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans in the US on the need to integrate the air defence network between Egypt, "Israel", Jordan and the Gulf States.

The omens of the exaggerated Iranian threat and the escalation by the "Israeli" government were reflected in the statements of prime minister Naftali Bennett who said “the revival of the nuclear treaty with Iran does not necessarily prevent Israel from taking action against Iran and on its own,” while the usurping entity’s defence minister Benny Gantz affirmed that “Iran does not stop trying to build advanced infrastructures of firepower aimed at developing capabilities for a wide confrontation with Israel”, claiming that “Iran is attempting to widen her influence in the region by arming several groups in the region,” and that “Tehran is a few weeks away from accumulating enough fissile material sufficient for one nuclear bomb.” The "Israeli" defence minister called for establishing a regional force led by the US to confront Iran; and this is the crux of the matter and the pivot around which all the recent political activities revolve, despite the propaganda dimensions of the coalition which the "Israeli" prime minister envisages from his escalation with Iran, and even though exaggerating the Iranian threat is harnessed by America to contain "Israel", influence its policy, and rein it in. In this context, Middle East Eye mentioned on 17 June that “the secret coordination mechanism asks Israel to provide details of planned missions to Centcom in advance, with the command then conducting a review and briefing the US secretary of defence and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who perform their own assessments.”

In light of all these facts, there is talk of a forthcoming war in the region, with "Israel" and its allies from among the Arab countries on one side, and Iran and its militias on the other. Some of them are drawing a host of scenarios for this war ranging from launching deadly strikes on a bank of targets in Iran, while Iran's surrogates in the region, such as Hezbollah and its militias in Syria, launching attacks on "Israeli" targets. In fact, some "Israeli" sides are warning "Israelis" of thousands of Hezbollah’s missiles shelling "Israel", and "Israel" responding with a crushing blow targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure. However, the eruption of a limited war with Iran to justify and entrench the Arab-"Israeli" alliance and to undermine public opinion and extreme right-wing political parties in favour of new coalitions more fitting to US interests, could not be ruled out but is unlikely in light of the international conditions, the Russian war on Ukraine, the economic crises and the global high prices of energy and food.

Hence, it is no longer a secret that hinting at the eruption of this war is rather designed to downsize Iran to the point where it would keep her as a scarecrow for the countries of the region, especially the Gulf States, until the integration of "Israel" in the region becomes a reality imposed through defense agreements, thus allowing "Israel" to directly oversee the capabilities and facilities of the countries of the region in a manner ensuring its existence, security, and military and economic interests.

As for Iran, it is a pivotal country in US Middle Eastern policy, and she has always been harnessed by America as a scarecrow and a substitute for Saddam Hussein's regime; and she has even been assigned the tasks that are consistent with her regional ambitions to concretise the notion of sectarian difference and turn it into an armed conflict between the Muslims themselves, and to dismantle the Ummah and plunge the region into bloody wars on sectarian grounds whenever necessary.

And as each agent is dealt with once the need for his function has been exhausted by restoring him to his original role and stripping him of all his gains, America is proceeding with clipping Iran’s wings in parallel with the process of the regional solution and the integration of the Zionist entity into the region; thus, the economic pressures and "Israeli" military strikes against Iranian soldiers in Syria are but a prelude to restoring Iran back to her functional square.

20 Thil Qi’dah 1443h
20 June 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Northern Ireland Protocol: US-UK Standpoint  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Spasmodic US-UK Standpoint  on the Northern Ireland Protocol

Following strenuous negotiations with the European Union (EU) that lasted three years and led to the resignation of two UK Prime Ministers, Boris Johnson boasted back then “we’ve taken back control of our laws and our destiny”, in reference to the agreement with the EU on Brexit. However, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a conservative protestant rightwing movement established in 1971 in Northern Ireland, and considered to be an arch- enemy of Irish nationalism and supporter of the UK and Brexit, vehemently opposed a fundamental point in the agreement known as the “Northern Ireland Protocol” which is pertinent to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the EU, stating that, “These proposals are not, in our view, beneficial to the economic wellbeing of Northern Ireland and they undermine the integrity of the Union”, in reference to the British Union which includes England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, adding that “this is not acceptable within the internal borders of the United Kingdom”. Therefore, the DUP withdrew its cooperation with the Conservatives in the House of Commons and thwarted Johnson’s efforts to ratify the agreement in October 2019; this compelled Johnson to call for a snap election in which he won an overwhelming majority under the theme of, “get Brexit done”, and subsequently succeeded in ratifying the agreement and executing Brexit in 2020.

As for the Northern Ireland Protocol, it stipulates keeping the province within the EU’s single market and deeming Northern Ireland a point of entry into the EU, which requires establishing customs borders with the rest of the British provinces, and thus Northern Ireland would be subjected to the customs system of the EU, knowing that the Northern Ireland Assembly would reserve the right to vote on the Protocol every four years. The need for this protocol hinges on the requirement to maintain the international agreement known as the Belfast Agreement or the Good Friday Agreement, which the Tony Blair government concluded in 1998, and which led to ending the bloody sectarian war in Northern Ireland. One of the main features of the agreement is abolishing the hard border between the north and the south. It is well known that the US backed the republican Irish party Sinn Féin, which called for union with the Republic of Ireland in the south, and its military wing the Irish Republican Army (IRA), with the aim of blackmailing and downsizing Britain and destabilising her security.

It is also well known that Britain’s exit from the EU was due to the centrality of the principle of sovereignty, which is the alert centre of the British people and their historical heritage. Britain deems her parliament as the quintessence of authority and sovereignty, and this was the main sticking point with the laws of the EU and the rulings of the European courts. Britain’s exit from the EU was also due to her alignment with the US in most of the continental and international issues, especially the issue of European security, NATO, and a host of economic issues.

Some British voices threatening to abolish the Northern Ireland Protocol or suspending its implementation by activating Article 16, which gives Britain the right to suspend certain rules, especially if the latter should face major economic upheavals, have been growing louder since May 2021. Meanwhile, Ireland and the EU warned of the dire consequences and instability which could result from suspending the implementation of the protocol, and the European Commission confirmed in July 2021 that the protocol was the joint solution the EU had reached with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and which was ratified by the UK’s parliament, to face the exceptional challenges imposed by Britain’s exit from the EU.

However, since Boris Johnson faced ethical issues for breaching Covid-19 lockdown together with some of his cabinet members, and since his party lost some of its members, in addition to the losses the Conservatives suffered in the local elections last month, Johnson, his Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and his Brexit Minister have been upping the ante with regard to the protocol; this culminated in Johnson’s decision to table a draft bill to introduce some amendments to the Northern Ireland Protocol, and to include it in the Queen’s Speech on the state’s opening of parliament. While the EU exhorted Johnson to fulfil his commitments vis-à-vis the “signed international agreements”, several statements were issued expressing Washington’s disapproval of London’s attempts to thwart the protocol, such as the statement of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, before Chatham House, pertaining to London’s plans to introduce legislation aimed at generating some exceptions to the protocol without prior agreement with the EU. She warned that, “If there’s destruction of the Good Friday Accords, they (Congress) are very unlikely to have a UK-US bilateral agreement.” But when her statement was met by nonchalance from Conservative Party members, the DUP, and UK ambassador to Washington, Congress dispatched a delegation headed by Congressperson Richard Neal, who is a Biden confidant, to London, Paris, Dublin, and Belfast, where he met several influential figures. Richard Neal also met UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who is known to have incited the popular base supporting Brexit, and who announced that she rejected their proposals and insisted that she would not allow the crisis to continue. However, the tweet of Liz Truss following the meeting revealed the depth of the diplomatic problem that London faces; she attempted to cajole America by recalling Britain’s role in the “alliance against the invasion of Ukraine”, but the US envoy brushed aside her statement and commented solely on the issue of Ireland. This corroborated Washington’s support for the EU’s standpoint, a narrative reflected in the Euro-American joint declaration, following the Paris meeting between representatives of the European Parliament and members of US Congress, which insinuated that renegotiating the protocol was not an option. Hence, following Foreign Secretary Liz Truss’s and Chief Negotiator of Task Force Europe Lord Frost’s repeated threats, the White House sent a clear diplomatic message through US Department of State’s senior adviser Derek Chollet, who said, “a big fight between the UK and the EU" was, "the last thing" Washington wanted. He added, "And it's particularly important right now where we need to send a message of unity to the world and not undermine all the things that we've been so successful in working on together over the last several months and showing unity in Ukraine." He also said, "We want to see this issue resolved and we want to see the temperature lowered and no unilateral acts.” This amounted to an implicit warning to Johnson, his Foreign Secretary, and his Brexit minister.

We conclude from this that America wants to maintain the status quo in Northern Ireland and to muzzle Johnson, lest he should confuse the issues and undermine her strategic aims and international plans, by harnessing the Euro-Russian crisis and his significant services to Washington in the Ukrainian file to achieve a breakthrough in the Irish file and gain some expedient and political achievements on the domestic front.
Disparity in the US and UK standpoints towards this issue are clearly reflected in Downing Street’s decision to dispatch Minister of State for Northern Ireland Conor Burns to Washington to expound London’s viewpoint. He said the protocol was, “Feeding into a sense within parts of the unionist community that somehow the protocol sets them apart from the rest of the United Kingdom.”

London has no solutions to put forward and feels infuriated by the protocol since it undermines her sovereignty. This was expressed by Johnson during a television interview by saying that he had signed the protocol thinking that the EU would not, “apply” it. London’s grievances were merely confined to the bureaucratic upheavals British companies were facing before delivering their goods to Northern Ireland, which in essence was because the British government was ill-prepared for Brexit and because it did not implement an electronic customs system to facilitate the work of British companies.

In fact, what is rattling Johnson’s cage and compelling him to gamble with his relationship with the US is his inability to fulfil his electoral political and economic pledges related to Brexit. This has piled up the complications and political failures on Johnson, such as the historic victory of Sinn Féin, the party that has been objecting every move pertinent to the protocol by London, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is known that since the process of the Brexit referendum in 2016, the Irish government launched a widespread diplomatic campaign in America among the Irish community, who has a significant political presence in the US, including Joe Biden and several representatives and senators, which culminated in the US reminding the European Commission of the necessity to highlight the issue and maintain the principles of the Irish peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement, such as establishing no hard borders between the north and the south. America harnessed the agreement to achieve her aims from Brexit, i.e., the tool she exploited to restructure the EU and its institutions and turn it into a fragmented continental economic bloc, thus leading to weakening both the EU and Britain and keeping them constantly in need of the US.

13 Thil Qi’dah 1443h
13 June 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Tunisia Political Situation Update 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Situation - Updates of the Situation in Tunisia

Since 25 July 2021, Tunisia has been witnessing an acute political crisis that arose when President Kais Saied carried out a host of measures which included dissolving parliament and the Supreme Judicial Council, and issuing a number of legislations through extraordinary presidential decree, which the “opposition” parties deemed a “coup against the constitution”, while pro-government forces deemed it a redress of the process of the 2011 revolution that toppled president Zein El-Abideen bin Ali.

To add insult to injury, President Kais Saied issued on 1 May a presidential decree stipulating the dismissal of 57 judges and accusing them of corruption after the opposition had officially established the National Salvation Front which included 19 Tunisian political forces opposing President Kais Saied.

As for President Kais Saied, he justified his comportments by claiming that his measures were “within the constitution and aimed at protecting the Tunisian state against an imminent threat”. All these developments were but the aspects of the hidden causes lying at the heart of foreign meddling and the jostling of domestic forces to win the custodianship over international interests, especially the interests of America and France, the latter having succeeded in enticing Kais Saied after he acceded to power through American backing, the details of which were later divulged.

However, with Emmanuel Macron defeating Marine Le Pen in the French elections on 25 April 2022, France’s choice to lift the lid on President Kais Saied became clearer, and Macron began to harbour the intention to get rid of him as he plunged the country into a political and economic crisis that threatens a popular outburst which would not only undermine France’s interests in Tunisia and neighbouring countries, but also Western colonialist influence and its projects in Tunisia and the rest of the Maghreban countries. And as Tunisian political forces have become divided, and the masses have been harnessed in the rivalry, France and America’s priority revolves around isolating the masses from the struggle and contain its consequences, threats and dimensions by gathering the political forces within the incubator of the Salvation Front and embarking on managing the crisis in isolation of the popular and partisan forces in order to ensure that Tunisia remains under Western custodianship.

Perhaps the first indications of France’s decision to lift the lid on Kais Saied was the U-turn of former presidential chief of staff Nadia Akasha, who was the liaison officer between President Kais Saied and the French embassy; she issued a statement on the day Macron won the elections and said that “25 July was a critical moment, a historic decision and a national process aimed at building the rule of law under which freedoms and institutions are respected”, adding, “alas, that moment and that process were hijacked by those who had no piety and no honour, and by a clique of losers who know nothing apart from practising vulgarity, distortion and deception.” She added: “Where does Tunisia stand today as she faces a stifling political crisis that poses an imminent and persistent threat the country has never experienced in its modern history.” There were also some audio recordings leaked by Nadia Akasha in which she revealed the serious health conditions of Kais Saied and claimed that he was but a puppet controlled by his wife Ichraf Chebil and her sister Atika. And in order to demonise Kais Saied and destroy his popularity, Nadia Akasha revealed on how the family of Kais Saied control the decision-making in a manner alluding to the return of the Taraboulsi clan, in reference to the wife of deposed president Zein al-Abideen, and evoking the repugnance of the masses towards the president and his entourage.

The omens of France’s policy pertinent to shunning Kais Saied have emerged since the meeting between French ambassador André Parant and the leader of al-Nahda Movement and Parliament Speaker Rashid al-Ghannouchi. A brief communiqué was posted on the latter’s Facebook page which stated that “the meeting tackled the latest developments on the national scene, and it was reemphasised that the relationship between Tunisia and France would be strengthened in a manner serving the interests of the two countries.” It has also been remarked that since the meeting between al-Ghannouchi and French Ambassador on 8 December 2021, the latter, who had requested the meeting, set about contacting a number of political forces opposing Kais Saied and inviting them to approach the al-Nahda Movement and support the initiative of Ahmed Najib Chebbi which was dubbed the “National Salvation Front”, the preparations for which began on 26 April. The moves of the French ambassador came amid the scathing attack America launched on Kais Saied for his moves to monopolise power and the extraordinary measures he carried out through which he has been running the country with an iron fist after he had dissolved all the elected institutions and turned on the “constitution and the democratic process.” The National Salvation Front was established following Chebbi’s consultations with several parties and associations on the grounds of believing in democracy, the necessity to return to “constitutional legitimacy” and to rescue Tunisia from its political and economic crisis. Ahmed Najib Chebbi confirmed through his statements that among the most important conditions of joining this alliance was rejecting the elimination or the eradication of any political or associative side. The National Salvation Front includes ten groups, the most prominent of which are five parties, namely al-Nahda, the Dignity Coalition (Al-karama), Heart of Tunisia, which is the party of Nabil al-Qarwi, Tunis al-Irada, which is the party of former president Moncef al-Marzouki and the Hope Party (al-Amal), which is the party of Ahmed Najib Chebbi himself, in addition to a few groups of the dynamism such as Citizens Against the Coup, Tunisians for Democracy and the National Salvation Front of Najib Chebbi.

It is clear that the meeting between al-Ghannouchi and the French ambassador aims to secure the political stability of the state and the guaranteeing of French interests; it is also a French message to Kais Saied to dissuade him from liquidating the political parties, especially amid the speculations that Kais Saied may issue a decree to dissolve the political parties and place their leaders under house arrest or throw them in jail, especially al-Nahda. The message to Kais Saied was corroborated through a series of meetings held later between the leader of al-Nahda, Rashid al-Ghannouchi, and several ambassadors including the Chargé d'Affaires at the U.S. Embassy, Natasha Franceschi, UK ambassador Helen Winterton and Italian ambassador Lorenzo Fanara. This indicates a Western consensus and interest in the political stability of Tunisia which was the spark for the “Arab revolutions” which have exhausted the reason for their existence and continuance. Consequently, France, who backed the coup of Kais Saied, and America, who did not object to it, are today worried about their interests due to the measures undertaken by Kais Saied which have precluded the political and constitutional life amid an international siege laid on all the financial channels of the Tunisian economy. In this context, and from the perspective of discarding the Islamists’ in power option, as well as fearing an assault on power by al-Nahda and the other parties, France, backed by America and Britain and other Western states with interests in Tunisia, exhorted Ahmed Najib Chebbi to generate the “moderate secularist” equilibrium with al-Nahda, tackle the political horizon’s stalemate and vent the resentment of the masses.

In this sense, the National Salvation Front, whose establishment was officially announced a few days ago and is led by Ahmed Najib Chebbi, represents a Western political alternative aimed at marginalising any leading role by al-Nahda within the ranks of the opposition. The National Salvation Front has put forward a national salvation programme which will institute for the upshots of the “National Dialogue Forum” whose founding has been assigned to Salahuddine al-Jourshi, who is known to be affiliated to the so-called “Islamist left”. And based on the programme of the National Salvation Front, an interim government of national salvation will be formed to assume managing the current phase and pave the way for general elections, i.e., legislative and presidential.

It seems that the West’s decision to withdraw its support for Kais Saied has generated an opportunity for Russia to build bridges with him to achieve what she concluded with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Syrian President Bashar Assad, especially as America does not object to Russian presence in the areas of her influence and the areas of French influence whenever her interests necessitate such a scenario, which she would harness to dismantle the Franco-Russian relationship through Russia’s collision and jostling with France in Africa, which represents the political nerve centre and economic artery of the French. In this context, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov wanted to visit Tunisia but then had a change of heart lest he should upset France while the Russo-American struggle in Ukraine is still ongoing. Meanwhile, on the day Lavrov cancelled his trip to Tunisia, the US embassy announced the two-day visit of Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Yael Lempert, to Tunisia, “to reiterate U.S. support for the Tunisian people, underscore the importance of taking steps to strengthen democratic governance, and emphasize the need for inclusive political and economic reforms.” The US embassy’s statement was concurrent with the moves of the French ambassador and efforts of the National Salvation Front. All this came amidst reports that President Kais Saied intends to visit Russia and American criticism of his political performance. This explains his confusion and dilemma now that he has lost his foreign political cover and resorted to losing gambles, which include the rumours linking him to the fabricated sabotage and the “terrorism” scarecrow in the south.

We conclude from this that Western efforts are underway to regulate the political compass in Tunisia, marginalise Kais Saied whose undertakings have forestalled institutional activity, and replace him with the National Salvation Front to manage the stifling political and economic crisis as the reality dictates that getting out of the stalemate, venting the popular resentment and preserving Western interests would only be achieved from outside the presidential palace. This is how the collaborators attract the meddling of foreign powers in their country to control the regime and orchestrate it according to their interests and to the detriment of the local people who have been afflicted with those rulers and politicians.

Foreign powers would not have achieved their aims in our lands if the Ummah had political awareness and had she perceived who are the avaricious enemies plundering her resources, the plans they are executing in her lands and the forces whose existence hinges on the help of Western powers who harness them to execute their plans, so that she may expose and smother them. The presence of individuals with political awareness would not suffice to avert the Ummah’s calamities or to protect her against slipups, no matter how numerous they were, as long as they continue to act individually; awareness therefore should be generated collectively among the Ummah, though it would not necessarily have to be universally generated. This is the only way to immunise the Ummah and her lands against the plotting and the threat of the Western powers coveting their lands and resources.

5 Thul Qi’dah 1443h
5 June 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Political Observation - "Israeli" Flag March 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - "Israeli" Flag March

Hundreds of herds from among the Jewish settlers stormed al-Masjid al-Aqsa on Sunday 29 May as part of the annual march marking the occupation of al-Quds in 1967. The event, in terms of the crowds, official security and judicial sponsorship and political consensus was unprecedented. It was the first time "Israeli" security services allowed the settlers to perform collective Talmudic rituals in the blessed land of al-Aqsa after a new judicial decree repealed the previous decree of al-Quds tribunal banning such rituals in al-Aqsa.

Dimensions of Finland & Sweden’s NATO Membership 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Dimensions of Finland & Sweden’s NATO Membership

In what seemed like a strategic reversal in the policies that had been adopted since the Second World War by some Western countries, such as Germany’s move towards strengthening her military capabilities, Sweden and Finland have recently announced their endeavour to join NATO to guarantee their security against Russian threats.

Contrary to Russia's warnings to Sweden and Finland against proceeding with their requests to join NATO, US President Joe Biden, together with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense welcomed enthusiastically the Finnish and Swedish requests, deeming such a move as adding strength to NATO. Britain for her part followed the US standpoint and Prime Minister Boris Johnson headed to Finland and Sweden on 11 May 2022 where he signed a security pact with both countries and pledged to protect them. Germany and France for their part welcomed the endeavours of Sweden and Finland to join NATO through a tweet by the German President and a French presidential communiqué. Amid the celebrations of Sweden’s request to join NATO, and in a standpoint alluding to Sweden and the European countries acquiescing to American willpower, the Swedish leftist opposition said the government was proceeding in the same direction like the rest of the herd.

On the other hand, and contrary to the standpoints of America, Britain and the rest of the Western countries, Turkey expressed her unequivocal objection to Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, justifying this by what she referred to as her "legitimate security concerns”. This was announced by Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu during his meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on 18 May 2022 in New York, amid speculation that the Turkish standpoint has sided with Russia who is engaged in a war with the West, and especially as Turkey has unveiled a host of conditions in exchange for changing her stance towards Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership. This indicates that President Erdogan has seized the opportunity to invest in Finland and Sweden’s request to join NATO to achieve a host of expedient and political gains which would help soften the targeting of the Turkish economy and curbing the European states and America’s harnessing of the opposition forces in undermining the Turkish regime. Moreover, President Erdogan is investing in the issue to close off the file of the sanctions that have deprived Turkey of acquiring military technologies, air defence systems and F35 jetfighters following her purchase of Russia's S-400 missile system. And to achieve a breakthrough and entrench the reality he has imposed militarily on the PKK and its Syrian militia QASD, thus completing the 30-kilometre deep buffer zone in northern Syria, relying on his even-handed standpoint vis-à-vis the Russo-Ukrainian war and on Russia’s engrossment on the Ukrainian battlefront and the American-led NATO campaign and its economic fallouts on Russia and Europe, Erdogan announced in his recent speeches that Turkey would not support Finland and Sweden’s application to join NATO unless her demands pertinent to the PKK and the sanctions imposed on his country were met. Erdogan went to extremes in his intransigence towards Finland and Sweden’s membership to NATO and announced on 16 May 2022 that there was “no need for Finnish and Swedish delegations to visit Turkey if the aim is to persuade us to approve their NATO membership.” This means that he is attempting to impede their application for membership temporarily so that he may gain a favourable Russian standpoint towards expanding the buffer zone in northern Syria in order to kill off the notion of a Kurdish entity, harness the presence of such a zone to encourage Syrian refugees to return to their homes and nullify the argument of the opposition who continue to play the tune of the refugees to incite the masses against the government. This explains his saying that, “Turkey will distinguish at this stage between those who respect her security sensitivities and those who only care about their interests and will design its policies in the future on this basis.” The statement is directed at Russia, America and Europe, since the continued raids on Idlib and northern Syria by the Syrian regime and Russia is a reminder to Erdogan that he should not drift too far away in his standpoints towards the American dictates.

As for America’s stance towards Erdogan’s intention to move in northern Syria, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said “ So we are deeply concerned about reports and discussions of potential increased military activity in northern Syria…. We expect Turkey to live up to the October 2019 joint statement, including to halt offensive operations in northeast Syria.” The US response also came through the endeavour of the US embassy in Ankara to provide, through one of its communiqués, a cover and protection for the protests staged by the opposition forces to unsettle Erdogan and through inciting Ali Babacan and Ahmet Davutoğlu, and calling on the opposition to rally their ranks to face Erdogan in next year’s elections; and all this comes in the context of exerting pressure on Erdogan to mellow his stance towards Finland and Sweden’s membership, dissuade him from moving militarily in northern Syria, and in the context of preparing to weaken the chances of the PKK in the next elections.

The US sees the intransigence of Erdogan as blackmail since he realises the significance of admitting Sweden and Finland to NATO and the impact it may have on besieging Russia and on the security of the European continent which will be facing a new hotbed of tension in the future due to the dormant Russo-Finnish border dispute which is prone to erupt and deepen the state of uncertainty between Russia and Europe.

As for the Russian stance towards Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, President Putin announced on 16 May that, “Russia does not have any problems with Sweden and Finland,” but “the expansion of NATO over their lands necessitates a response from us,” adding “the NATO expansion is a fabricated problem for the benefit of Washington.” It is clear from the standpoint of Putin that he could do nothing but denounce and threaten which will not prevent the membership of the two countries , but it sends a message to Georgia and Ukraine whose membership to NATO will constitute a serious threat to Russian national security and to the European states who are aware of the American aims behind NATO’s expansion and its fallouts on European security in all its aspects. In this context, Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters, “NATO expansion and its closeness to our borders does not make the world and our continent more stable and secure.” As for the security pacts Britain has concluded with Sweden and Finland, it was designed to link the two countries to NATO via Britain’s gate, until they become officially members. Britain is a NATO member state and her commitment to protect Finland and Sweden entails a NATO intervention as per Article 5 of the NATO charter, which stipulates that any attack on a member state is an attack on all member states. By projecting herself as a military power capable of providing protection and deterring other states, Britain is seeking to compete with other European nations and influence European decision-making through the gates of NATO now that she has left the EU; this role was assigned to her by Washington and it was reflected in her previous military manoeuvres in the Black Sea and her recent security agreement with Japan, especially as the security pact she concluded with Finland and Sweden has come in the context of the Russian war on Ukraine. This portrays Britain as a major power that has returned to the world political scene and gives her an international standing bigger than her real size.

As for the plane of the American aims, it is well known that expanding NATO by admitting Finland and Sweden would achieve several aims such as extending the frontlines against Russia, dissipating her military deployment, focusing her military strategy on defensive issues, directing the Russian economy towards military investment and thus depleting the Russian economy and moving it away from civilian industries with competitive dimensions, and killing off the notion of establishing a military force independent of NATO, due to the European states inability to provide defensive cover to the European flaccid flanks on the eastern and southern fronts, as well as the nascent northern front which stretches for 1300 kilometres on the Russo-Finnish borders alone. Moreover, expanding NATO will corroborate the European states affiliation to the US and will bolster the American arms market on which NATO member states depend and which yields billions of dollars to the US Treasury. Hence, America’s endeavour to expand NATO and ensure its continuance was never far from the pressures exerted by the influential military industrial conglomerate on the US decision-makers; this was corroborated by former Judge Advocate General (J.A.G) in the United States Army, Major Todd Pierce, when he addressed the issue of US national security policies being dominated by Lockheed Martin.

24 Shawwal 1443h
25 May 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

The Extensive Security Operation in Jenin & the Internal Power Struggle in "Israel"  

Putin’s Speech & Developments in the Russo-Ukrainian Crisis 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Putin’s Speech & Developments in the Russo-Ukrainian Crisis

In his annual speech yesterday, 9 May, marking the victory of the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, an annual celebration that Putin has been harnessing throughout his term of office to corroborate Russia’s presence as a world military power, Russian President Putin linked the “spirit of victory” and the sacrifices of the former “great patriotic war” to the patriotism of Russia today and her struggle to remain a political and military player at the world stage. He stressed that Russia’s decision to go to war in Ukraine was right and deemed it the decision of a sovereign, powerful and independent state.

President Putin accentuated Ukraine’s centrality in the orthodox patriotic thought upon which he has built his domestic and foreign policy. His speech carried several messages with domestic and foreign themes. He glorified several important battles in Ukrainian cities during the “great patriotic war”, and stressed that the current battle was a historical communication. He said “Today, as in the past, you are fighting for our people in Donbass, for the security of our motherland, for Russia.” He also blamed America, Ukraine and NATO, justifying his decision to go to war by the security alerts he had received, including Ukraine’s preparations for a “punitive operation in Donbass”, Kiev declaring “that it could attain nuclear weapons,” and “Nato began the active military assimilation of territories along our borders,” adding that “an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders”, and that “Russia launched a pre-emptive strike at the aggression…. The decision of a sovereign, strong and independent country.”

These statements by the Russian president came as Washington continued to escalate the crisis by imposing sanctions on Moscow and pursuing her support for Ukraine; this was reflected in the request by the White House to Congress to approve military support and an extra $33 billion for Ukraine. It was reflected also in Biden’s decision to sign on the same day the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act into law. The law dates back to the Second World War and it was enacted to support Ukraine against Hitler by speeding up the dispatch of military equipment to Ukraine.

The US escalation is vividly reflected in the support given to Zelensky’s efforts to incite European public opinion against any country, organisation and company dealing with Russia by using very poignant expressions such as “your hands are stained with our blood”, and in the obstacles preventing reaching a solution that could throw Putin a lifeline or spare Europe from the Russian security threat such as Zelensky’s insistence on clinging to all Ukrainian territory including the Crimean Peninsula. America has also been pushing the British prime minister and his foreign secretary to incite against Russia and provoke her and press Europe to accept the sanctions imposed on Russia in the energy sector. Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph has exposed France and Germany’s cooperation with Russia and the logistical support they lent her in the form of thermal monoculars for tanks and navigation systems for jetfighters. The US escalation is also clearly reflected in the statement delivered by NATO’s secretary general following Putin’s speech in which he said NATO stood firmly behind Ukraine and would continue to support her right to defend herself. Those were the very words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken which alluded to giving Zelensky the green light to escalate the situation and widen the scope of the war beyond Ukraine. This is corroborated by the continued supplies to the Ukrainian army with means of resistance and sophisticated assault weapons, as well as intelligence reports that helped the Ukrainian army sink the Russian ship Moskva, and by America’s decision to raise the issue of the separatist region in the republic of Moldova, namely Transnistria, which is adjacent to Ukraine and occupied by the Russians, through the security tensions in the separatist region and the military deployments on the border routes, in addition to the provocative behaviour of the Moldovan government against Russia by turning Moldova into a military supplies bridge for Ukraine, and the West’s decision to supply Moldova with a bundle of military aid and prevent the Moldovan government from celebrating the Russian victory day which it used to mark each year.
The Ukrainian crisis has so far enabled America to execute a host of measures to isolate Russia, drive a wedge into her relationship with Europe and empower NATO member states and upgrade their military systems by increasing their military expenditure, an enterprise that several US administrations had focused on achieving. The clearest sign for this prospect is Germany’s precipitated decision to inject approximately €100 billion into her defence budget and to approve a bill for increasing the annual military spend to 2% of GDP; Italy also proceeded with a similar measure. The EU for its part issued a resolution pertinent to achieving European energy security by reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and opening the European market for liquid gas supplies from America with the shipping costs being covered by the increase in gas prices during the crisis. America has also given Ukraine a platform for armament with the most sophisticated US military equipment including Javelin and Stinger missiles to test the effectiveness of her weapons against Russian weapons. America wanted also to test her intelligence capabilities by passing on to Ukraine data on Russian warships which led to sinking the Russian battleship Moskova and information on how to target and incapacitate the Russian frigate Admiral Marakov, and how to target Russian military commanders. She also tested the capabilities of the “co-operators” aka the “Belarusian saboteurs” in executing support actions such as disrupting the supply chains and supply routes of the Russian forces on the Kiev battlefront.

On the other hand, the bundle of sanctions on Russia has started to impact the progress of her military operation; UK defence department commented on the Russian army’s consumption of substantial quantities of sophisticated ammunition, most of which depends on European components and spare parts whose export to Russia has been banned. All this was summed up by the statement of UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace in which he emphasised the West’s policy vis-à-vis the crisis by saying “"Putin must fail in Ukraine is our key policy mission, but we mustn't avoid the fundamentals here, which is that it is for Ukraine to choose how it ends this conflict, how it makes Russia end this conflict.” This is expressive of an Anglo-American persistence to compel Russia and Europe to adhere to the rules of the new political and security game by giving Ukraine all the means enabling her to deplete Russia and force her to fail by arming and training Ukrainian forces so as to impose a reality on the battleground to the point where Russia could never win this war in a meaningful way, and which would compel her to opt for the least damaging outcome from among the colours of failure, and which would lead Russia into an impasse and force her to move to plan C which would necessitate focusing her military operations in the area of Donbass and south Ukraine, and even the seaport of Odessa in the southwest, and establishing a buffer zone to cut off Western supplies. And this is the American aim which has been dwarfing Russian objectives. Pushing Putin towards plan C would enable America to achieve the objective from which she is hoping to shape the appropriate security climate for the continuance of NATO and its hegemony over European sovereign decisions, namely keeping Russia as a scarecrow for the European states, especially as that is what America wants the war to lead to as Putin continues to defy the US administration which is forcing him to cling to the regions of Donbass and Crimea and making this the end of his wishes, so that Ukraine may remain a hotbed of tension on Europe’s eastern borders, and so that Russia may also remain a source of anxiety, tension and fear for Europe through the war of attrition, or through subjugating Putin and harnessing him for that purpose. In this context, America managed to bide time, which is an important factor in warfare, and compelled Western states to bankroll Ukraine and arm her with what she needed for a war of attrition in eastern Ukraine; she has also prepared them for the new security climate which will include keeping them under the American cloak and under her nuclear umbrella. The US jibes at Putin, making him brandish nuclear weapons, by leaking the report on CIA supplying the Ukrainian army with the data of Russian warships and the locations of Russian generals on the battlefields, as well as Boris Johnson’s taunting of Russia by visiting Ukraine, fall perhaps within this context. This means the American plan for the battle will compel him to stay militarily in Ukraine, thus luring him into a devastating war of attrition; it will also keep Ukraine a hotbed of tension forcing the European states to proceed behind America even at the expense of their own interests. This explains Macron’s apprehensions and his proposal to establish a European bloc in parallel to the EU with the aim of bulwarking the European standpoint vis-à-vis any Russian dispute with neighbouring European countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, and averting any direct clash between Europe and Russia which would impact European interests, especially in the energy sector, and also with the aim of circumventing the project of inviting European countries to apply for EU and NATO membership, which is a source of worry for Russia, and thus, the parallel bloc would act as the alternative for all of this and would nullify America’s pretexts to lead Europe towards what she wants; nevertheless Macron is still willing to give America what she wants in respect of the “war of models” by determining democracy, freedoms and the rule of law as commitments for the parallel European bloc. This is because America is redrawing the geopolitical and value-based boundaries which would redefine the “West” and make it an international political tool in the political, economic and value-based war of models and in initiating the integration of Europe in the potential battle with China. Although Putin projected self-confidence, his speech revealed the weightiness of the unprecedented sanctions imposed on Russia, the scale of international pressure and the domestic embarrassment to the Russian leadership, especially after the relationship between Russia and "Israel" had been strained due to Lavrov’s scathing attack which was unbecoming of conventional diplomacy. It is also clear that the Russian leadership is facing a crisis and its room for manoeuvre is narrow and limited. On the other face of the coin, it is clear that Europe is shackled, perturbed and lacking willpower; she submitted to America despite her strategic and geopolitical interests being with Russia rather than America, and despite her inability to abandon Russian energy, at least for the time being. Europe relies on gas imports exceeding 150 billion cubic metres a year, while America can only supply her with 10 billion cubic metres.

Hence, the progress of the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, amid American superiority and the diversity of components of its power, and amid Putin’s reliance on oppressive military power and his ability to muzzle domestic opposition, is heading towards forcing Putin to resort for one of these options: either total defeat and international isolation, depletion, or submission; and if Putin were to acquiesce to this scenario, it would disrupt the interactants of the Russian military power and its cornerstone, break the silence of the Russian masses, destroy the foundations of the regime and its willpower, dismantle the hard nucleus supporting Putin and herald his downfall to seize Russia’s reins, downsize her, plunder her resources, control her relationship with Europe and neutralise her in any potential struggle with China.

10 Shawwal 1443h
11 May 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

Eid Message  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Dear Noble Brothers and Sisters - Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

We congratulate you on Eid al-Fitr and we pray to Allah the Almighty to accept from us the Siyam and the Qiyam, and make us from the salvaged of Ramadhan.

This remarkable occasion and divine rite comes as the Ummah continues to suffer under the yoke of the Kuffar and regimes ruling the Muslims with Kufr who are waging a relentless war against their religion and their Aqeedah. The days have been proving each day that these regimes are harsher against the Muslims than the Kuffar themselves as they are the bridge through which the Kuffar get to the Ummah to assail the religion and dignity of the Ummah and plunder her riches.

It has become common knowledge that the conspiracies of these regimes are dictated by the Kufr states and their international institutions, starting from altering education curricula by discarding Islamic values and building them on the concepts and values of Western civilisation, and changing the constitutions and laws to suit the frenzied attack waged by the world’s dark forces against all the peoples and nations of the world.

At a time when these regimes witness the viciousness of the Kuffar against their masses, and their betrayal and abandoning of the states’ chieftains for the sake of their interests, they continue to cheaply offer themselves for the sake of their masters and their interests to the point where they have become spineless, relishing slavery, affiliation and treason, and devoting themselves obediently to serve the Kuffar.

This all-out war being waged against the religion and Aqeedah of the Ummah warrants from the Muslims to awake from their slumber and seek the path of salvation from the wretched reality they are experiencing, the genocide there are facing and the frenzied onslaught on their religion and values which culminated in the emergence of aspects never known to their predecessors, and which even caused the obliteration of nations before them. So, would the Muslims await the sunnah of replacement and accept to be obliterated? Allah the Almighty would then replace them with other people who would be as eager to preserve their religion as they are to preserve their lives. Or would the Muslims awaken from their slumber, reject the state of heedlessness and move consciously to face these calamities that are befalling them from every corner, threatening their religion and their values with extinctions and trampling their dignity?

Severe shocks are enough to awaken nations and make them determined; but we are witnessing the opposite. Despite the blazing emotions of the Muslims towards their religion and their yearning for implementing the Shari’ah of their Lord, they are no longer moved by the attacks against their sanctities, the acrimony towards their Lord and the rejection of the sunnah of their Prophet, and not even the attacks against the values and rules of Islam.

We are aware of the scale of hardships facing the Ummah and the magnitude of the viciousness inflicted on her, and what those who work towards her liberation and revival face in terms of extermination and punishment. We have also witnessed what the Ummah has suffered at the hands of the Kafir West and these regimes in terms of tragedies and calamities. However, this Ummah is different from the other nations of the world. She is the Ummah who has carried the trust of Islam with all its weightiness and sacrificed for the sake of conveying its message. This Ummah is the stronghold of the sole goodness capable of salvaging the world and bring it out of the darkness and into the radiance of Islam. She is the Ummah that Allah the Almighty has pledged to grant victory if she aided His cause and if she moved with her utmost power to reverse the conditions she is enduring.

Hence, hope, all the hope, is pinned on her; not only to salvage herself but the entire world from the hegemony of the ghoulish and savage capitalist system and what it has inflicted upon the nations and peoples of the world in terms of ruin, destruction and distortion of reason and human nature. This is because the Islamic Ummah is the only nation possessing the truth and the path of righteousness.

We pray to Allah the Almighty to complete the joy of this Ummah by removing her worries, trials and tribulations, unifying her ranks, healing her rifts and ending her infighting. We also pray to the Almighty to help those who are working sincerely towards unifying her and raising her banner.

30 Ramadhan 1443h

1 May 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Events of Masjid al-Aqsa & Political Activity Preceding Them 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Events of Masjid al-Aqsa & Political Activity Preceding Them

"Israeli" forces killed last month more than 16 Palestinians, who were elevated as martyrs, in various military operations while 14 "Israelis" were killed in four individual attacks executed by Palestinians. As the month of Ramadhan entered and the Jewish Passover began, tensions and "Israeli" police attacks against worshippers in al-Masjid al-Aqsa intensified to protect the Jewish settlers and the Jewish “Temple Mount” groups. The unarmed Palestinians, specifically those living in al-Quds, have depicted the most splendid images of heroism in standing up to the forces of occupations and herds of settlers. Their hearts were filled with the belief that Allah the Almighty would be their Guardian when support became scarce.

These events are, without a shadow of a doubt, not isolated from the preceding political activities undertaken by some US agents in the region, with the aim of preserving the normalisation process and alliance with the Zionist entity while injecting blood into the veins of the government of occupation that had become frail and ramshackle due to the speculations, acute partisan tussles and "Israeli" divisions. Egyptian president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi hosted a month ago an unannounced meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh between "Israeli" prime minister Naftali Bennett and Abu Dhabi’s crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed, during which they reviewed the fallouts of the Iranian nuclear deal, which represents a scarecrow to "Israel", with the aim of establishing a security system that would include the latter and keep the behaviour of rightwing "Israeli" governments in line with the US Greater Middle East Initiative. Propagating the imminence of an agreement between America and Iran and calling for removing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from America’s foreign terrorist organization blacklist was perhaps designed to corroborate such narrative. The meeting also explored the means to contain Palestinian reactions to the provocations of the extremist Jews during the month of Ramadhan and the Jewish Passover which the opposition was set to harness to weaken the cabinet of Bennett and dismantle its alliances. The Sharm al-Sheikh meeting was followed by the summit of al-Aqabah in which Jordan took part alongside Saudi, the Emirates, Egypt and Iraq, and by another summit between King Abdullah II and President Mahmoud Abbas for the same purpose, namely shoring up the government of Bennett and containing the fireball and escalation for which the "Israeli" extreme rightwing had plotted. All this was in parallel with what "Israel" described as the summit of hope in the Negev, which gathered US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, "Israeli" Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Egyptian, Emirati, Bahraini and Moroccan foreign ministers. Their statements and their decision to visit Ben Gurion’s grave, which provoked the emotions of Muslims, corroborated their support for the government of Bennett and Lapid which was threatened with collapse, and for the “Abrahamic” process under a US and Arab official sponsorship, despite the people of the region who reject it. The Bahraini foreign minister announced that there was a need to turn the “Abrahamic agreements into actions and practices against terrorist forces such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Iranian aggressors.” For his part, Emirati foreign minister said “Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty 43 years ago and we regret not having joined then.” All this lip service was designed to shore up the rightwing government of the occupation and generate the security, economic and political climate which would, “optimistically”, influence "Israeli" public opinion and persuade it of the viability of the “peace” process as a foundation for the existence, continuance and security of the Zionist entity, instead of the military and security options which the recent operations in inner Palestine have proven a failure, in addition to what the climate of the Arab-"Israeli" alliance, the “Abrahamic” process and the “regional solution” may generate by imposing the usurping entity on the people of the region, in addition to disheartening their resistance and dashing their hopes. This is what al-Sisi heralded in 2016 when he linked what he described as “the warmest peace” to settling the issue of the “Palestinians”; what he meant by this is that the "Israelis" should seize the opportunity and accept the formula of settling the issue through tackling the aftermaths of the occupation and granting the Palestinians a part of their land.

Hence, the "Israeli" escalation that erupted in al-Masjid al-Aqsa falls within the context of the "Israeli" partisan speculations and tussles between the secularist movement on the one hand and the "Israeli" rightwing, such as the government of Bennett, and the far-right parties such as the Likud on the other; the Likud exploited the event to undermine the government and the Yamina party, one of the leaders of which (Idit Silman) turned on Bennett and resigned from the coalition after she had been incited and enticed by Netanyahu, thus reducing the parliamentary majority between the government and the opposition to 60-60 for each.

As for the "Israeli" government, it could not find a better way to thwart the opposition’s attempts to exploit the event than oppressing the Palestinians and protecting the settlers and religious zealots to preserve the cohesion of its coalition and its electoral credentials, while attempting to rein the herds of Zionists in and prevent a sharp escalation due to foreign considerations dictated by the US desire to avert an eruption of the situation leading to diverting the attention from the Russo-Ukrainian war, which she deems the most important event at this moment; this was expressed by Secretary of State Blinken who stressed the importance of maintaining calm in the region. In this sense, the government of Bennett is eager to prevent any aggravation of the situation, in line with the American standpoint. "Israeli" newspaper Hayom reported that as of Friday, "Israel" would prevent Jews from entering Masjid al-Aqsa until the end of Ramadhan. In the same context, the collaborating Arab Ministerial Committee reacted to contain the situation; its communiqué in Amman two days ago revealed that it had washed its hands off the duty to deter the Zionist entity and its herds, and referred the responsibility to protect Masjid al-Aqsa and the Palestinians to the “international community”. Moreover, and according to Middle East Eye, Hamas received 150 calls within 48 hours from various parties pertinent to “mediation efforts” to prevent war in the Gaza Strip following the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and al-Quds. For its part, since Khaled Mashal announced the amendment of its charter and Ismael Haniyeh was selected as head of its politburo to justify foisting that amendment with Khaled’s Mashal’s announcements during the last war on Gaza last year alluding to accepting the two-state solution, Hamas has been regulating its policy and activity according to the process that had been agreed upon in Cairo. Its swift contact with Egypt, informing her that she was not responsible for the missile attack on the Zionist entity last Monday, and that the threatening language amidst the Zionists’ aggression against Masjid al-Aqsa was merely for propaganda purposes. According to Middle East Eye, sources said that Hamas “has been trying to contain the activities of its ally, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), using "sharp language" and warning against unilateral escalation following threats made against “Israel” by its Beirut-based secretary-general, Ziad al-Nakhala.” It was hoped Hamas would preserve what its men had achieved in terms of heroic actions despite the disparity in capabilities at all levels with the enemy, and that it would rally the resistance and unify its objective in inflicting damage on the Zionist enemy and deterring it from pursuing its aggressions against Masjid al-Aqsa and all the cities of the West Bank and Gaza.

The tempo of the progress in executing the Deal of the Century, with the adjustments made by Biden included, is proceeding at an alarming pace, especially as the file of Al-Quds and holy precincts has been the hottest issue for years and almost on a daily basis, to achieve a consensual formula acceptable to both the "Israeli" and Palestinian sides, amidst an Arab political climate inclining towards establishing an alliance with "Israel" and normalising relations with it.

Faced with these conspiratorial and demeaning standpoints the Arab regimes have become accustomed to, and the meagre standpoint that would shroud the Muslims with shame each time their honour has been violated and their sanctities vilified, we call on everyone whose heart is filled with Iman and who yearns for the Jannah of Al-Rahman, from among those with power in their hands, to rise and succour their Aqsa and the blessed lands that surround it, and to draw close to Allah the Almighty in this noble month, the month of victories, by purifying the blessed land from the squalor of the Jews and those allied with them.

The likes of Khalid Ibnul Waleed, who destroyed the Persians and the Romans within a few years, are still within the Ummah. Likewise, the likes of Salahuddin, who liberated al-Quds from the Crusaders who were mightier and fiercer than the Jews, are also among the Ummah. The Ummah still has the likes of Alp Arslan who faced 200 thousand Crusaders with 20 thousand mujahideen and vanquished them, imprisoning the Roman Emperor in the process. All the Ummah needs is the leader who would project her credentials of struggle, her heritage of knowledge, and her rich reservoir of men and equipment, and deploy all this for the sake of her revival and liberation.

“Fight them so that Allah may punish them by your hands and humiliate them, and help you against them, and heal the hearts of the believers.” [al-Tawbah-14]

22 Ramadhan 1443
23 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Struggle in Palestine jews & those Behind Them: Axiomatic Facts for Ummah 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Struggle in Palestine with the jews & those Behind Them: 
Facts that Must Remain Axiomatic Among the Ummah

First: The issue of Palestine is vital and towards which a measure of life and death must be undertaken. It is, however, secondary to the central issue, namely resuming the Islamic way of life by establishing the Islamic State and implementing the rule of Allah on earth. This warrants removing the systems of Kufr, toppling the collaborating rulers, unifying the Muslims’ lands, and preparing for resuming Jihad, liberating Palestine and carrying the message of Islam to the world. Although Palestine is a secondary issue, it is however not merely a disputed piece of land, but rather part and parcel of the Aqeedah of the Muslims. Palestine had been linked to their Islam and to their Aqeedah before they even conquered her and spread their authority over her lands. Allah had made Palestine the first Qibla of the Muslims and the night journey of His noble Messenger ﷺ. It is in Palestine that Allah brought all the prophets to life for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to lead them in Salat in her Masjid, and it was from Palestine that Allah ascended His Messenger ﷺ to the heavens. It is also Palestine that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made it a rite to set on a journey to it in addition to Makkah and Medina; and he ﷺ made it Mandub (recommended) to he who cannot travel to it to send oil to light the lamps of Masjid Al-Aqsa. This is not confined to al-Quds alone, but it also includes all the lands of Palestine, as per the text of the noble Qur’an. Allah says: “Limitless in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa - the environs of which We had blessed -so that We might show him some of Our symbols”. Hence, the mubarakah (blessing) includes the surroundings of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, namely all the lands of al-Sham, Yafa, Tal al-Rabi’, Haifa, Saida, Beirut, Tabariyyah, al-Nasira, Nablus, al-Khalil, Gaza, al-Aqabah, , and Sinai, are all a blessed land linked to the Aqeedah of the Muslims. It is forbidden to forsake one single inch of it, irrespective of how far it were from al Quds and from al-Masjid al-Aqsa because it is all a blessed land linked to the Aqeedah of the Muslims; forsaking it would be tantamount to forsaking the Aqeedah of the Muslims and betraying, Allah , the Messenger ﷺ , and the believers.

Second: If the enemy usurps any part of the Muslims’ lands, the Muslims will have to rise for Jihad to repel the enemy and fight him until they recover the land, even if they have to sacrifice their lives and all that is precious for the sake of this duty. This is why the Muslims rose, when the Crusaders seized the lands of Islam during the Crusades, to fight the invading Crusaders and they never relinquished one single inch, and they went on fighting them generation after generation until they succeeded in recapturing al-Quds 90 years after it has been lost. They also recaptured all the lands of Islam from the Crusaders in wars lasting 200 years, without willingly surrendering to the overwhelming enemy any part of the land. The Crusaders would usurp areas of land through war, and the Muslims would persevere in fighting them until they recover what had been usurped from them by force; they never accepted to let the crusader populate, be comfortable, or build settlements without a fight. What the Muslims concluded with the Crusaders were merely armistices and stoppings of acts of warfare for a limited period, so that the Mujahideen may muster their forces, not to let the Crusaders live in the lands they had usurped, or acknowledge their right to one single inch of the lands due to, ipso facto, superiority, and overwhelming power.

Third: The peace agreements and normalisation the regimes have concluded with the Jews do not concern the Ummah in any shape or form; these regimes do not represent the Ummah in the slightest but rather those who have brought them and assigned to them the affairs of the Muslims through hegemony and power. Hence, they are agreements between the jews and regimes affiliated to the West, and with an international colonialist sponsorship. They are agreements of capitulation and submission by these regimes to the jews. Thus, they have no Shari’ah, or judicial, or political impact as far as the Ummah is concerned, and they do not prevent any Jihad or resistance or war against the usurping jews, and do not even suspend any struggle against the traitorous functional regimes who have emboldened the jews.

Hence, all these agreements, which have been designed to liquidate the issue of Palestine, normalise the relationship with the Jews, integrate them in the region, and even hand over the region’s leadership to them, do not represent the Muslims whatsoever.

Fourth: The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic Ummah, rather than the issue of the UN, or the Quartet, or the League of Arab States; it is not even the issue of the people of Palestine alone, as they want it to be. It is an issue of the Ummah alone, and according to what her religion dictates, who determines the manner to solve the issue. Shari’ah makes it compulsory upon the entire Ummah to undertake the necessary measures to execute this solution, through those who genuinely represent her willpower, namely the Khalifah of the Muslims who the Ummah will appoint as a guardian and protector of her interests; and this is not hard for the mighty Islamic Ummah who ruled the world for centuries.

Fifth: All the solutions of liquidation proposed internationally or regionally, and all the political initiatives that some Palestinian groups, or Arab or international forces have called for are but solutions designed to embed the usurping entity and liquidate the issue. Moreover, not only are such solutions pragmatic and have no connection to Islam, they are also flawed and do not reflect the interests of the people of the region. Such initiatives have failed to liberate one single inch of Palestine and have not deterred the jews from their aggression, haughtiness, and ghoulish behaviour; they have rather yielded further concessions and entrenchment of the usurping entity in Palestine.

Sixth: The sound solution to the issue of Palestine begins by placing it on its original plane, namely treating it as an Islamic issue. It is neither an Arab nor a Palestinian issue but rather the issue of the entire Ummah. Islam makes it obligatory on the Islamic Ummah to work towards recovering Palestine through Jihad and fighting. This obligation falls on the people of Palestine first, and if the sufficiency is not achieved the obligation will fall on those next to them from among the Muslims, and then the nearest to them, until sufficiency is achieved and the lands recovered from the usurping jews. However, since the regimes surrounding this entity are engrossed in protecting its security and entrenching its existence by linking it to the people of the region through economic and political agreements to secure the continuance of its existence, the sound path towards liberating Palestine would be to reject such conspiratorial solutions, destroy these traitorous regimes and establish the Islamic State, which will rectify the process of liberating Palestine from the usurpers. This does not mean that the Muslims in Palestine and outside should remain bystanders until the Islamic State is established, because Shari’ah has made it obligatory on those capable of inflicting damage on the enemy, or preventing him from executing its plans, or weakening his power, to harness their ability to achieve this, so that the flame of Jihad and the effort to achieve liberation may remain ablaze in the hearts of the Ummah’s children, not only to liberate al-Masjid al-Aqsa, the violation against which is used today as a tool to bulwark the government of Bennet and Lapid against collapse and to reverse the plans of the extremist rightwing to the advantage of the government with an official Arab collusion, but also to liberate the Ummah from colonialism, enslavement, and treason, and liberate all the land of Palestine for good. This is not hard in the slightest for Allah .

“If you aid the cause of Allah, He will help you and will make firm your steps.” [Surah Mohammed-7]

16 Ramadhan 1443h
17 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Pakistani Parliament Ouster Against Imran Khan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Pakistani Parliament Ouster Against Imran Khan

On 10 April 2022, America succeeded in toppling Imran Khan and his government after she had instructed the Supreme Court of Pakistan to issue a decree on Thursday 7 April nullifying all the instructions of President Arif Alvi to dissolve parliament and declare early elections, as per the recommendations of Prime Minister Imran Khan.

After parliament had passed a vote of no-confidence, Imran Khan announced in a deceiving tweet, in which he harnessed the concept of conspiracy, that, “Pakistan became an independent state in 1947; but the freedom struggle begins again today against a foreign conspiracy of regime change.” This tweet was a follow-up to what Imran Khan announced when the Pakistani opposition were attempting to oust him the fist time; he said during a speech aired by Pakistani television on 31 March 2022, “I will fight until the end and I will defeat these conspiracies,” he added, “People suggested me to resign but I will play till last ball. I will not resign. I will play till the last ball.” This is what the collaborators usually do when they lose the backing of their foreign sponsors to the advantage of their opponents and their partners in treason.

America mobilised the opposition against Imran Khan whom she accused of economic maladministration despite the support he had received from her through the IMF and the World Bank. She also accused him of failing to control rising inflation and the deterioration of the Pakistani Rupee, in addition to his mismanagement of foreign policy. Imran Khan retorted by claiming that the challenge his government had been facing was instigated by an American conspiracy and the collaboration of the opposition with foreign interference, and by calling the masses, especially the youth, to protest the conspiracy and stage nationwide marches.

In fact, America has been working on exacerbating the Pakistani domestic political situation in order to screen and probe Pakistani public opinion vis-à-vis the politicians by hounding the opposition to topple the prime minister who had taken a catalogue of standpoints and policies that invoked America’s wrath and infuriated the military institution affiliated to her, such as his relationship with Russia and China, who had warned of a potential coup in Pakistan. During his televised speech on 31 March 2022 ,Imran Khan implied that a “Western state”, meaning America, was backing his ouster because he had visited Russia and met President Vladimir Putin last month; he then declared his alignment behind Russia and stressed that Pakistan’s foreign policy should be independent and not hostile towards any nation. This does not mean that he became independent, or he intends to become independent, but he merely felt his sell-by date had expired, and thus he merely wanted to demonise his opponents and plant landmines in their path.

Amidst this political tension in the country, an army spokesperson announced on behalf of the Pakistani armed forces that “the army has no bearings on the current political events”; this was a few hours before the dissolution of parliament and the government on 3 April 2022. However Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa slammed the Russian war on Ukraine a day before and called for an immediate end to the “great tragedy” suffered by a smaller country. America for her part hastened to deny the allegations of Imran Khan, stressed her neutrality vis-à-vis the Pakistani political forces and reiterated her eagerness to maintain the Pakistani political approach and its conformity to her interests.

Although the spokesperson of the Pakistani army claimed impartiality in the political battle taking place between Imran Khan and the opposition, the statement of the army chief however revealed that Imran’s standpoints did not please America, and thus Pakistan’s standpoint should not be neutral in Russia’s war on Ukraine. Hence, Imran Khan’s visit to Russia on the same day Putin declared war on Ukraine was a political banana skin irrespective of whether the visit was with the blessing of America or not; therefore, Chief of Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa stated in the same speech that Pakistan should be in the Western camp, "We share a long history of excellent and strategic relationship with the United States, which remains our largest export market," he said, adding that European Union, United Kingdom, Gulf, South East Asia, and Japan were also vital for Pakistan’s national development. This makes the Pakistani opposition an American choice at this stage, without nevertheless forsaking Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf in which she has been investing since 1999 via Imran Khan, and which represents a major popular force in tribal areas, and especially as Chief of Staff Qamar Javed contradicted Imran Khan who stated that Pakistan had made a mistake by aligning herself with the West during the Cold War. He also openly criticised Western diplomats in Islamabad who, in the previous month, requested in a joint letter from his government to condemn Moscow’s aggression against Kiev; he retorted by saying, “What do you think of us? Are we your slaves...that whatever you say, we will do?"

As for the relationship with China, Imran Khan expressed to the Washington Post in September 2021 his aversion to offering the US air bases in Pakistan; he also expressed his refusal to enter any alliance hostile to China. This was when foreign troops in Afghanistan were about to complete their withdrawal. In June, Imran Khan was quoted as saying “Absolutely not. There is no way we are going to allow any bases, any sort of action from Pakistani territory into Afghanistan. Absolutely not.” As a result, America instructed the UAE to request the return of its $1billion deposited with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), at a time when the government of Imran Khan was facing a deep financial crisis. Pakistan had to also borrow $1billion from China to pay back a loan to Saudi.

The US pressure on Pakistan was also induced by Sino-Pakistani rapprochement in isolation of the American coordination through which America has been attempting to delay China’s economic accomplishment before blackmailing her, especially in respect of the investments pertinent to the Sino-Pakistani economic passageway, such as building railways and expanding the seaport of Gwadar, which is deemed a major seaport for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in addition to the arms deals with the Pakistani army. China harnessed America’s need for the seaport of Gwadar as a passageway for Turkmenistan gas in which US energy firm Chevron Corporation had invested, and Pakistan’s desperate need for development in the absence of financial revenues, and strengthened her influence in the Indian Ocean by harnessing the strategic seaport of Gwadar as a vantage point to monitor the Strait of Hormuz, which is the operations site of the United States Fifth Fleet headquartered in Bahrain, and also to monitor India’s Western Naval Command on the western coastline; this obviously clashes with America’s strategy pertaining to containing China and besieging her in the Indian Ocean.

What evokes America’s concern most is that China has recently become the main arms and military equipment supplier of the Pakistani army, and has even eclipsed America. The share of Chinese weapons in the Pakistani army has risen from 13% to 41%, in addition to China’s full support for the Pakistani nuclear programme. Imran Khan stated clearly and in contradiction to US policy in Pakistan, during his televised speech in August 2021: “We are lucky because we have a friend who stood by us through thick and thin. None of our other friends stood by us like China who supported us politically and defended us in all fronts.” He added that Pakistan was facing tremendous pressure to normalise her relationship with "Israel".

Accordingly, and despite his services to the US, Imran Khan failed to read the changes in US policy towards Russia and China, and failed to take into account that the collaborator’s affiliation to world powers is useless during political crises, especially according to the logic of interests which does not recognise any permanent friend, and in the presence of rivals in treason. Hence, despite all the standpoints he took and his close rapprochement with China and Russia, Pakistan remains under US custodianship because the Pakistani military commanders are still slaves and have not unfettered themselves from their collaboration with America. This is why it was plain sailing for America to mobilise the opposition with the backing of the army and the Supreme Court to topple Imran Khan and his government despite the popular support he had mustered due to the unambiguous American conspiracy to remove him.

Hence, the new prime minister and president of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) Shahbaz Sharif hastened to corroborate his loyalty to America by saying, “Our relations with Britain and America have experienced ups and downs, and we will work to improve our relations with both countries.” He also addressed India by saying, “We want peace, but that is not possible without resolving the Kashmir issue.” And this in fact is in line with the United States’ plan to mobilise the countries of the region against China and Russia in preparation for containing them and compelling them to submit to the American will in this century.

15 Ramadhan 1443h
16 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

French Elections - War on Islam 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - French Elections – War on Islam

The French presidential elections will take place tomorrow 10 April, followed by legislative elections in June 2022, amid a widespread debate over French identity and its standing in the world and Francophone countries, and amid France’s competition with Germany over Europe’s leadership.

The first round of the elections are held under a catalogue of political, diplomatic and economic setbacks Macron faced in 2021, and during which France looked impotent and exposed, especially in the Libyan issue, Mali and Lebanon, as well as in the confrontation with Turkey in the East Mediterranean and in the AUKUS submarine deal which deprived France of the chance to establish any noteworthy presence in the Indo-Pacific region and the weapons market of that part of the world, not to mention the crisis of Ukraine and Russia which has placed France between the devil and the deep blue sea, not knowing whether to please America and invoke the wrath of Putin by siding with Ukraine in the face of Russia, or please Putin and anger America and most of the European states, thus losing further leadership credentials on the European continent. Putin’s recent criticism of the freedom to libel religions adopted by France presupposes a warning to Macron regarding his standpoint vis-à-vis Ukraine rather than a sympathetic gesture towards Muslims.

To understand the first round of elections, it would be imperative to observe two issues: 1 - none of the candidates is likely to win a majority in the first round and the elections will move to a second round. 2 – The French state is striving to direct the attention of the French masses towards the issue of protecting the constitution, freedoms and the secularist identity by attacking Islam, despite the impact of such an undertaking leading to engrossing France in domestic issues.

French elections have never witnessed a fiercer struggle over French identity as is the case today. The candidates of the French rightwing, namely Eric Zemmour, dubbed as France’s Trump, Valérie Pécresse, the candidate of “Les Républicains” (LR) and Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, have stirred the issue of immigrants and exploited it as electoral ammunition and a bridgeway to the electoral powerbases. The majority of current opinion polls indicate that Macron is leading the race after succeeding in implementing a host of stringent policies towards Islam and immigration, the two files representing the electoral arsenal of the candidates, and, at the same time, the fig leaf with which they cover their abjectness, compensate for their failures and corroborate their continental presence amidst Europe’s demographic fears and the controversy of identity that has been disquieting the French masses.

However, the intensity of islamophobia and animosity towards immigrants has risen steadily in parallel with the intensity of the jostling and mobilisation on the grounds of the identity issue in the elections. When Eric Zemmour announced his presidential run, he said “It is high time we salvaged France, not reform her,” adding that he was running for president “so that our children and grandchildren do not suffer from barbarism… so that our daughters do not wear the hijab… so that they may inherit a France as she was known to our predecessors.”

In the course of the unabated contest to win rightwing votes from the supporters of Le Pen and the centre-right whom Macron relies upon, Valérie Pécresse, who aspires to be the first woman to assume the post of president in the history of France, announced as she won the nomination of “Les Républicains”: “We will win back France’s grandeur and protect the French people,” adding that she felt “the anger of the masses towards the Islamist separatist tendency, and their feeling that their values and lifestyle are threatened because of the uncontrolled immigration.”

As for the aspect of policies, Zemmour pledged in his electoral communiqué that if he were to win the elections, he would suspend all the benefits offered to foreigners which would save the French treasury $20-30 billion each year and would strive to preserve national sovereignty by estranging America and consolidating the relationship with Russia. As for Valérie Pécresse, she is marketing herself as the strong woman inspired by the experiences of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel; she described herself as being “a third Thatcher and two thirds Merkel”, considering that such description alludes to a message of reconciliation with the US due to the harmony between the policies of Thatcher and Merkel and those of the US in most international files. As for Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, she thinks Zemmour is “submerged in the clash of civilisations” and hopes her electoral powerbase would not be eroded by the frenzied tussle and gravitation amidst the divided French rightwing. Although the role of Zemmour and its motives and fallouts are still unclear in these elections, it is nevertheless evident that it would lead to eroding the votes of the French rightwing; and this is what Macron dreads. However, it is imperative to perceive that the main objective is to gain enough votes to secure a presence in the second round, which has been historically characterised with deals and consensuses, as was the case in the second round of the previous elections. Hence, some sources are talking about an undeclared deal between Macron and former president Nicolas Sarkozy who did not back any candidate in the internal polling of Les Républicains. In this case, Macron could circumvent Valérie Pécresse’s challenge by striking a deal with Sarkozy to form a governmental coalition with the Republicans proceeding behind Sarkozy, which means Macron will scoop the vote of that electoral powerbase instead of Valérie Pécresse. Although Macron has been the object of domestic public resentment and has failed in several foreign political files, he however continues to head the opinion polls and is supported by historical facts; Giscard d'Estaing in 1981, and Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, were the only two presidents in the history of the Fifth Republic to have failed in being re-elected.

Despite the diversity of the candidates and the attempts of each one to project the qualities distinguishing them from the others to win the votes of the electorate, they however, by and large, raise and adopt three main issues: French identity, secularist republic and national sovereignty. Their political manifestos pertinent to these issues revolve in a remarkable manner on Muslim immigrants and on the “threat” of Islam which constitutes a challenge to French values. Hence, the candidates tend to resort to ideological mobilisation and use racist expressions such as “Islamic terrorism”, “subjugated Muslim women”, “Islamic separatism” and Islam’s threat to the “values of the republic”, while cloaking their grudges with the shrouds of freedom, fraternity and equality to conceal France’s repugnant colonialist face, knowing that America has been behind the rise of Europe’s rightwing movement with the aim of dismantling the political milieux and manipulating them, especially in France.

8 Ramadhan 1443h
9 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Pakistan’s Role in Serving the US 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Pakistan’s Role in Serving the US

The government of Imran Khan has been locked in a fierce struggle since the start of the year with the opposition parties led by Shahbaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League) and the son of Benazir Bhutto and Chairperson of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Imran Khan accuses the opposition of conspiring with foreign powers against the sovereignty of Pakistan, while the opposition rejoinders by exploiting the deteriorating economic situation, inflation, increasing foreign debt and the inability of Imran Khan’s government to carry out the reforms, as well as his maladministration of the procedure of appointing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director-General to replace Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, thus exposing an issue which is usually handled behind closed doors, and contributing to the departure of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM-P) and twenty members of Imran Khan’s party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to the opposition, which allowed the latter to gain the 172 votes needed to pass the no-confidence motion and place the government of Imran Khan on the brink of collapse.

It is worth mentioning here that several officials in the Biden administration and the Department of State had informed Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington several times verbally, and at least once in writing, that they were very concerned about the deterioration of bilateral relations between the US and Pakistan, especially in respect of the main foreign policy conducted by the Khan administration. The US officials also warned of the consequences Pakistan could face if she did not adhere to the American outline in these issues and adapt to the situation; meanwhile, US diplomats intensified their meetings with leaders of the Pakistani opposition.

In this context, we ought to know that it is the US who manipulates the Pakistani political forces and army and controls them like puppets, exactly like the rest of the collaborators in the Muslims’ lands, especially the leaders of Egypt and the Gulf States. This is deduced fromPakistan’s policies in reality and directly from a statement by the Deputy Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, who said “all parties in Pakistan have to get approval of US government.” It is also imperative to perceive that America allows her agents to compete for serving her interests without the need to intervene at times, while she may on other occasions back one team at the expense of another in accordance with her interests, especially in the presence of an alternative enjoying popular support, if the regime faced collapse, if the ruler strayed from the path or if she wanted to weaken the state and fragment it on regionalist and sectarian grounds.

In the case of Pakistan, the US is attempting to test the toughness of Khan’s government in the face of the storms it has been facing since the tenure of Donald Trump who never offered any economic incentives to help Imran Khan fulfil his electoral pledges. America is endeavouring to produce a government capable of securing her interests irrespective of the ruling party, especially in foreign issues representing the cornerstone of Pakistan’s functional role since she was adopted as a base for America’s conspiring against the Soviet Union and a launching pad to hijack India from the British. In the wake of the Second World War, America paid special attention to South Asia (India and Pakistan) based on the Truman Doctrine which Harry Truman announced to the US Congress on 12 March 1947 by saying “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” This was expounded in the American National Security Council position paper no. 48/1 (December 1949), which stated that ‘Should India and Pakistan fall to communism, the United States and its friends might find themselves denied any foothold on the Asian mainland,’ and it was also corroborated by Allen Dulles in 1953 who said that Pakistan was a reliable fortress against communism, if religion and Muslim human resources were harnessed in competing against the Soviet Union; he added that such qualities would make America “need them in the alliance”. This culminated in America signing a joint defence agreement with Pakistan and offering her membership of Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Hence, Pakistan became totally affiliated to America who exploited her in her political agendas such as supporting Jamal Abdul Nasser in nationalising the Suez Canal, backing Ahmed Ben Bella in the Algerian war of “independence” by offering him a Pakistani passport, offering US spy planes a host of bases to fly over Chinese and Soviet lands, offering the American Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) an office at the Pakistani army’s general command, and offering logistical assistance to rebels in Tibet which China had occupied and ignited a war against India in 1962. This resulted in India throwing herself into the embrace of America; and this was the opportunity America had been yearning for since the partition since India was the main target of the US due to her significance in the international struggle and in dominating Asia. President Kennedy announced in 1959 that the crisis was a struggle for leadership in Asia.

75 years since the Pakistani state came into being, Pakistan’s relationship with the Western world and her affiliation to the Middle and Far East region has been dominated by two issues, which nurtured her role in executing US policy, namely the communist expansion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan (1947-1985) and then the War on Terror since 2001. Pakistan, through successive governments, chose to market herself to the West to undertake the role played by Turkey and Greece against communist expansion. Pakistan’s founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah said “we hope America will pour money and weapons into Pakistan.” Moreover, it rallied behind the US to execute the Truman and the Eisenhower Doctrines. This was corroborated in 1952 by Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, Ali Bogra, who said the US should not consider Pakistan a neutral state in Asia as her main sympathy was with the West.

This approach was pursued by the government of Ayyub Khan, who confronted the influence of the communist party in Afghanistan in 1973, and the government of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq following the intervention of the Soviet Union in 1979. Then Pervez Musharraf linked Pakistan to the War on Terror and in turn received $18 billion between 2002 and 2011.Pakistan’s domestic political situation was dominated by the centrality of the military institution in running political life and giving priority to the American security, economic and political interests to the detriment of “national” interests. This trend has been conspicuous since the coup of Ghulam Mohammed against the government of Khwaja Nazimuddin in 1953, then the coup of Ayyub Khan, who had a direct relationship with CIA Director Allen Dulles, against the government of Fairuz Khan in 1958, and then the coup of Pervez Musharraf against the government of Nawaz Sharif in 1999. Washington’s knowledge and approval of Pakistan’s military coups was deduced from the reality of the military authorities’ relationship with the CIA and the US embassy, especially their direct contacts with the political officer at the embassy, and the contacts of Ayyub Khan with the CIA and the State Department to persuade them to “rely on Pakistan in preserving the free world”. This was before his military coup against the government of Fairuz Khan in 1958.

Today, and following the American withdrawal from Afghanistan for which Imran Khan paved the way immediately after his election by releasing Mullah Baradar, the chief negotiator in Doha, Pakistan faces a catalogue of challenges reflected in the regional alliances, political movements and the wretched economic situation. The US is harnessing the current economic slump to pave the way for the Pakistani government to execute the legislative, fiscal and tax reforms to attract US investments and incentivise Pakistan to work with the IMF, implement its recommendations and borrow from world markets, which have been urging Pakistan to implement fiscal, economic, and legislative reforms, especially following the decrease of US and Saudi aid and the financial revenues from Iran due to the US sanctions. All this is designed to deepen Pakistan’s affiliation to the US and rehabilitate her for the role America wants her to assume vis-à-vis China. This has been preluded through Imran Khan’s alliance with Turkey and Malaysia, and through America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan which resulted in planting a hotbed of tension and instability to threaten neighbouring countries and Russia’s southern flank, orchestrate the relationships of the countries of the region and control the agenda of negotiations with the Taliban via the troika that includes Russia, China, Pakistan and the US.

Hence, America is striving to redirect Pakistan’s and Afghanistan’s role in light of the challenges posed by China and Russia, especially as Pakistan played a focal role in conducting the Soviet-Afghan struggle, in addition to her strategic position in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and the energy supply routes stretching from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Imran Khan was harnessed by the US in covering up the centrality of the army with an acceptable political façade to vent the masses’ anger and regulate Pakistan’s political life according to the American agendas. He also served America in terrifying bin Salman by withdrawing from the alliance against Yemen, and he was harnessed in the attempts to transfer the Islamic leadership from Saudi to Malaysia, Turkey, Qatar and Indonesia to form an Islamic force outside the framework of the Organisation Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in order to help bin Salman detach the land of the Haramayn from its religious roots and pursue his campaign of embracing the Western lifestyle. Imran Khan was also used in weakening the centrality of the Arabs in the (Sunni) Islamic world and driving a wedge between them and the non-Arabs. Nevertheless, it is likely that America would abandon him as she did with his predecessors; this could be read in his latest statement: “we sacrificed our interests for the sake of those abroad, but they never appreciated it.”

However, the precariousness of what is being concocted by America for Pakistan and Afghanistan is reintroducing the “Islamic” confrontation against China who is being demonised and whose crimes against the Uyghur Muslims are being highlighted. Hence, it is feared that this could lead to using the Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan as firewood in a fierce war of attrition, as was the case with the Soviet Union.

29 Shaaban 1443h
1 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Hadith (Tradition) of Siyam 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Hadith (Tradition) of Siyam

For the 98th year, Muslims have been living without an Imam ruling by the Shariah of Allah - which He has approved for us as our Deen - and without a state taking care of their affairs and applying its rulings on them. The Kafir West exploit al-Ruwaybidat (lowly and despicable men), whom they appointed as presidents, kings and emirs over Muslims’ countries to guard the borders of Sykes-Picot, and divide Muslims under the flags and banners of Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) that Islam has rejected, such that each “country” decides the day of fasting and day of Eid separately or for exigent political interests. Some of them will apply astronomical (lunar) calculations relating to the time of the crescent’s birth and this is contrary to the Hadith of the Messenger (saw) “Fast upon sighting it and end your fast upon sighting it” while others will depend on the sighting of the (moon's) crescent to confirm the start of the month. The difference in the beginning of fasting and Eid between these countries is usually politically motivated to dismantle the unity of Muslims and poison their Deen and Aqeedah, which is embodied in the unity of fasting and breaking the fast, the unity of their state, their Khalifah and banner

Muslims have a choice between two options, there being no third for them: either to obey the created, or to obey the Creator; and there is no way to attain contentment except by obeying the Creator and upholding His command and His prohibition. For Allah ta'aala says, 'This day I have perfected for you your Deen and completed My favour upon you and approved al-Islam as a Deen for you.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala ordered His Rasool (saw) with the conveying (of the message of Islam). 'Oh Messenger. Convey whatever has been revealed to you from your Rabb and if you do not do this then you will not have conveyed His message.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala ordered us with al-Taa'ah (obedience). 'But nay, by your Rabb, they will not believe (in truth) until they make you judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no dislike of that which you decide, and submit with full submission.' (TMQ). Allah ta'aala also says in the Qur'an, 'It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.' (TMQ)

And the Messenger (saw) said, 'By the One in whose Hand is my soul, I have certainly been sent with that which is pure and clear proof' and he alayhi al-salatu wa al-salam said, 'Even if Mūsā were alive, he would have no choice but to follow me.'

Thus, he alayhi al-salatu wa al-salam clarified for the Ummah all the matters of Deen with the text of the ayaat (verses) and the Hadith, and left the Ummah on the pure reasoning and proof whose night is like its day and only those who will perish will stray from it. 'And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.' (TMQ). Among the things he made clear to them was that he explained to them when they should fast and when they should end their fast and bound that to correct sighting of the Hilal (crescent) of the month of Ramadan or Shawwal. He also made clear to them how they calculate months and years.

'It is He who made the sun a shining light and the moon a derived light and determined for it phases - that you may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this except in truth.'(TMQ) And the manner with which to understand the entry of the month and its departure; 'Lo! The number of the months with Allah is twelve monthsby Allah's ordinance in the day that He created the heavens and the earth. Four of them are sacred: that is the right religion.' (TMQ) And Allah ta'aala says, 'They ask thee, (O Muhammad), of new moons; Say: "They are fixed seasons for mankind and for the Hajj".' (TMQ)

So with his (saw) manifest statement the Muslims dispensed with others, for he (saw) did not leave a place of deficiency or defect in their Deen, rather he perfected their Deen and completed it. 'This day I have perfected for you your Deen' (TMQ) and 'And We revealed to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.' (TMQ)

He (saw) demonstrated to them their Deen in its totality such that they are only required to understand its texts and to derive the Ahkam from these for all of life's issues. Therefore, the radix (source) to follow the Hukm Shar'i in fasting and fitr (breaking fast), and in Usool al-Fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence), Ibadaat (worships) are Tawqifiyyah (invariable or fixed). The Prophet (saw) directed us to specify the start of the fast by Ru’yah (sighting) the crescent of Ramadan and to commence fitr (end fasting) by Ru’yah of the crescent of Shawwal. He (saw) did not request Muslims to use calculations to know the time of the birth of the moon, regardless of its ease for Muslims throughout the ages to do so, rather he ordered them to fast with Ru’yah (sighting) the crescent and to make fitr with Ru’yah.

So that we comprehend the Shar’i requirement from us, it is an obligation upon us to limit the linguistic and Shar'i Mafaheem (concepts) that relate to al-Hilal (the crescent) and al-Ru’yah (sighting).Shahr (month) linguistically, as reported in the Mu’jam Maqayees al-Lughah (Dictionary of Language) by ibn Fares, means “clarity in a matter and enlightenment of this month, and in the speech of the Arabs, al-Hilal, then named every thirty days by thename of al-Hilal and said it was Shahr (month)”. Sheikh-ul-Islam ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in “Majmoo’ al-Fatawa” said, 'Al-Hilal is taken from appearance and raising of voice (ie announcement), while it is derived from the actions of Ademites who say: "We witnessed al-Hilal" (ahlalna al-Hilal), we have begun the month (istahlalnah), thus there is no Hilal except whatever was witnessed (istahal)". Further, al-Hilal is the beginning of the moon (waxing crescent) as ibn Mandhoor said, 'Al-Hilal is Ghurat al-Qamar (the early aspect of the moon and its most prominent) when people witness it at the advent of the month and it is called Hilal for the first two nights of the month and then not referred to as al-Hilal until it re-appears in the following month.' As for in Shari’ah, the month is a reference to the “lunar month”.

As for the Ru’yah, it is “seeing or sighting by the eye or vision”. The Shari’ah Ru’yah considered acceptable by the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence is the Ru’yah after sunset and not the daytime sighting which has no effect amongst the majority of Ulema. Ru’yah does not require the assembly of Muslims or a specific number of them, for Rasool Allah’s statement 'Witness it' means the absolute witnessing and his statement 'Fast' and 'End your fast' is general including all people on this earth, there being neither difference between one country and another nor between (one) Muslim and (another) Muslim.

Thus al-Hukm al-Shar'i has made the rising of the crescent of Ramadan a Sabab (cause) for fasting, i.e. a known indicator/sign of the existence of the fasting of Ramadan; that is to say, if the people of a country see the crescent, then all the Muslims have seen it. And whoever witnessed it is a Hujjah (proof) for whoever did not see it.

Al-Bukhari narrated from ibn Omar that 'the Messenger (saw) mentioned Ramadan and said: 'Do not fast until you sight al-Hilal, and do not end your fast until you sight it and if it is obscured then estimate the days' and he also said, 'The month is twenty-nine nights, do not fastuntil you sight it and if it is obscured complete the term thirty' and he said: 'I heard the Messenger (saw) say: "If you sight it, end your fast and if it is obscured estimate the days”. He also narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger (saw) said: 'Fast based on sighting it and end your fast based on sighting it and if it is unseen complete the term of Sha’ban'; thus, he obligated the fast on the following day once sighted and tied fasting to sighting of al-Hilal such that if the sighting is obscured he ordered to complete the term 30 days. He neither tied the fast or ending of the fast to the “birth” of the moon or touched upon the subject. The Legislator installed the Ru’yah as the Sabab (cause) of fasting and if its rise is not sighted the Sabab Shar'i is not met; the Hukm is not proven by calculation or otherwise, even if it is accurate or definitive, the reason being that the Legislator did not establish it as a Sabab and did not obligate fasting by it. This is further confirmed by the narration of Al-Bukhari that ibn Omar said that he Messenger (saw) said, 'We are an illiterate Ummah; we do not write or calculate, the month is such and such meaning twenty-nine days and thirty days'. 

Calculation in this context refers to calculating the motion of three bodies relative to each other, i.e. it involves solving a three-body problem involving the orbit of the moon around the earth, and then the orbit of the earth and moon motion which is also orbiting the sun; thus it is evident from the context that it conveys the rejection of tying the hukm to calculation.

Al-Imam al-Nawawi said regarding it: (Rasool (saw) said "Fast for sighting it and end your fast for sighting it”; the meaning is the Ru’yah of some of the Muslims and does not pre-requisite the Ru’yah of every Insan (human), rather the sighting of two just persons suffices for all people), this being evident in the narration of ibn Omar who said, 'The people sighted al-Hilal and I told the Messenger (saw) that it was sighted, so he fasted and ordered the people to fast' and it is evident from the narration of ibn Abbas that 'an Arab came to al-Naby (saw) and said, "I sighted al-Hilal tonight" so he (Rasoolullah) said, “Do you bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger?" He said, "Yes, and he (Rasoolullah) said, "Call o’ Bilal to the people to fast tomorrow”. Ibn Taymiyyah said, 'If its rise in the sky is not manifest on earth it has no Hukm, neither outwardly or inwardly, so that if it is witnessed (istahal) by one or two who did not declare it then that is not a Hilal. No Hukm is proven until they declare it and this declaration is al-Ihlal, which is the raising of the voices to disclose the sighting. And because Takleef  (responsibility) follows Ilm (knowledge), then if you have no knowledge you are not obligated to fast'. This Yaqeen (decisiveness) through Ru’yah is confirmed by ibn Abdul-Bir in “al-Tamheed” who said, 'No fasting of Ramadan should be undertaken without Yaqeen that the month of Sha’ban has ended, this Yaqeen only being met by the sighting of al-Hilal or completing thirty days (of) Sha’ban.’

It is therefore incorrect in fasting and ending of the fast to consider other than the Ru’yah Shar’iyyah, this being the Ru’yah that a just Muslim bears witness to knowing what they have sighted. The borders that divide us should have no bearing on the difference in fasting and ending of the fast amongst Muslims, regardless of the differences or distances between their lands.

Dear Muslims…

The month of Ramadan is the month of Islam, in which the Da’wah began, the state was stabilised and the Muslims were victorious, and the attacks of the Kuffar against Muslim lands were crushed. This month is the glory of Islam and Muslims in this world and the hereafter, drawing closer to Allah in it is magnificent and doing good in it is great, its fasting is ashield and its Qiyam (standing in Salat) is a Sunnah. Allah honoured it with Laylat ul-Qadr (night of power) and singled it out with a great reward. Every deed of a son of Adam increases a good deed by 10 to 700 times. Allah Azza wa Jall said: “Except for fasting, which is for me and I reward for it.”

During this honourable month the Prophet (saw) would increase his exertion over other months in Ibadah and Sadaqah and all nature of good deeds. The Sahabah followed his example such that they would exert more effort to become closer to Allah in Ramadan than they normally would in other months. The Messenger (saw) is our Uswah Hassanah (beautiful example). Even as we strive continually to work sincerely to resume the Islamic (way of) life on earth, it is befitting of us during the month of fasting that we should strive to become closer to Allah and multiply our efforts to carry the Da'wah and propagate it; as the Rasool (saw) said, 'By Allah, should Allah grant Hidaya (guidance) to one man, it is better for you than red camels". How valuable would this be if this were to happen in Ramadan?

We ask al-Mawla Azza wa Jall to assist Muslims in their work for the advancement of their Deen and the resumption of their Islamic way of life, by applying the Shar' (Law) of their Rabb (Lord), and carrying it as a message to the whole world.

And Allah is al-Hadi (the Guider) and al-Muwaffiq (granter of success) to the sound way.

29 Shaaban 1443h

1 April 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Developments on Libya’s Political Landscape 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Developments on Libya’s Political Landscape

The Libyan capital Tripoli witnessed last Thursday a security mobilisation after the Tobruk House of Representatives had assigned the premiership to Fathi Bashagha with Abdul Hamid Dbeibah refusing to step down. And while the UN expressed a conniving standpoint in favour of Bashagha, the US contented herself by saying she was monitoring the situation and called on all parties to observe calm.

Since the Libyan political process was gradually designed by the US since the Sukheirat Agreement of 2015 and under the auspices of UN Envoy Martin Kobler to liquidate the remnants of the “February Revolution” and to dwarf the role of the “Islamists” on the political landscape, and subsequently, form an interim government headed by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah to oversee the elections which never took place in December 2021, it would be imperative to perceive the new developments of instructing Bashagha to form the government in light of statements made by Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Stephanie Williams on 13 February after she had met both Dbeibah and Bashagha. Following her meeting with Dbeibah, Stephanie Williams emphasised “the importance for all actors and institutions to work within the political framework and, above all, to preserve calm on the ground in the interest of Libya’s unity and stability,” and following her meeting with Bashagha she reiterated “the need to go forward in an inclusive, transparent and consensual manner, and to maintain stability in Tripoli and throughout the country”. She added the focus must continue to be on the holding of “free, fair and inclusive national elections in the shortest possible time”, which alluded to implicit support for Bashagha to form a new government to assume transferring power and endorsing the constitution now following Dbeibah’s failure in his mission. This was later clearly expressed by Williams during her meeting with Aguila Saleh; she said “the Speaker of the House of Representatives briefed me on the mechanism that the House will follow to grant confidence to the new government in line with the procedures implemented in the vote of confidence in March 2021.”

If America kept silent over assigning Bashagha to form a government as it is evident from her standpoint and the standpoint of the Head of UNSMIL Stephanie Williams, this could only mean that the elections’ mechanism to design the situation had either failed or had been thwarted, and a crisis has been generated by forming a new government to achieve several aims via the collaborators in the Presidential Council and parliament behind which the remnants of the defunct regime bulwark themselves, as well as those who express the American standpoint and assume the task of stripping the armed factions of their weapons and influence, and strive to bring the masses back to the stable of obedience. America is also endeavouring to regulate anew the roles of foreign powers represented by Russia and France, contain their presence in Libya and downsize their aspirations and gains, in addition to continuing to contain Erdogan and control his foreign performance to the tune of American interests.

Hence, the decision of Stephanie Williams to raise the issue of preserving the stability of the security situation, whose agitation represented an obstacle in the face of the elections, and to persist following her meeting with Bashagha on holding “free, fair and inclusive national elections in the shortest possible time”, while maintaining her recognition of the Dbeibah government, indicates that America continues to implement the policy of maintaining an equilibrium between the east and the west, and the process of containing all the parties especially in the western areas such as Tripoli and Misrata, by driving a wedge between the political and military forces in the western region that supports both sides of the governmental tussle, namely Abdul Hamid Dbeibah who upset America by dismissing her protegee, foreign minister Najla Mohammed El Mangoush, and Fathi Bashagha, the pawn of the West and ally of Khalifa Haftar.

In this context, the US is attempting to dash the hopes of the masses in Libya and subjugate them via a leadership emanating from the collaborating political milieu, even if she were forced to annihilate the effective tools on the political landscape, thus paving the way for endorsing the situation and bringing back to what it was before the revolution by destabilising the political landscape and brandishing the threat of dividing Libya through multiple governments and divergent leaderships, and exhorting the masses to accept the elections whose results have already been determined as was the case in Algeria. America did previously warn last January through her envoy to Libya and her ambassador Richard Norland against distracting attention away from the electoral process following attempts to form a new government since the issue would lead to generating a parallel government. This standpoint was supported by Britain whose embassy in Libya announced that it would continue recognising the Government of National Unity (GNU) as the authority in charge of leading Libya towards the elections, and that London did not support “establishing parallel governments or institutions.”

America is undoubtedly harnessing Dbeibah’s craving for leading the government to destabilise, reproduce and orchestrate the situation. She is also harnessing his security mobilisation to confront his opponents in deepening the troubled security climate which has impeded the electoral process in order to justify disarming the armed the groups in Tripoli and the western region, enable her agents from seizing the reins of power, and forestall the gambles of foreign powers on the jostling Libyan political forces. Hence, US State Department corroborated its commitment to backing the political process led by the Libyans that fulfils the demands of the masses by holding elections. Russia for her part attempted to undermine the position of the Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) Stephanie Williams by calling for appointing a UN delegate whom America has been, and still is, preventing from taking the vacant seat in Libya. Hence, the step of instructing Bashagha to form a government with the international community continuing to recognise the government of Dbeibah has frozen the role of the dialogue committee under the reality that has impeded the elections and restored the role of the Tobruk parliament in the balance of domestic powers, especially following the meeting between Stephanie Williams and Aguila Saleh. It has also shifted the struggle to the interior of the western region, especially Misrata, the hometown of both contenders for government. This is expected to generate an administrative confusion and paralyse or impede the functionality of the state’s institutions, in addition to aggravating the deteriorating standard of living and exerting further pressure on the masses of the western region, thus persisting on silencing the weapons of the warring factions and the aspirations of the covetous personalities, pushing them towards subjugation and consensus, and holding elections under the auspices of the UN which represents the American volition; subsequently, making what America wants is what the Libyan people want as well.

Hence, the country will remain hostage to Western designs, which are executed by the faithful collaborators of the West who would burn the country down through wars from which only the Kuffar benefit if they differed, with the innocent and oppressed Muslims being the firewood, and whose agreement would only be in service of their masters, the Kuffar, away from the Ummah and her interests.

How long will the Muslims continue to be pawns on the chessboard? Is it not high time they seized the reins of power and worked towards rectifying the situation and implementing Islam in life, the state and society?

25 Shaaban 1443h
28 March 2022

hizbuttahrir.org

Yemeni Stakeholders Political & Military Actions at Behest of Foreign Powers: Designed to Steer towards Negotiations 

Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Fallouts of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The aims of America and Russia are no longer a secret over the Ukraine war. Putin, who realised that America had been luring him into military action by refusing to give Russia any guarantees to not arm Ukraine, retract her application for membership to NATO and the EU, and renounce any plans to deploy NATO weapons on her lands that would undermine Russian national security, wanted to carry out a blitzkrieg to either topple the government of Zelensky or force it to sign an agreement which would prevent NATO expansion and would benefit him in bolstering his domestic popularity and Russia’s regional and international grandeur, and thus imposing a fait accompli in the face of which France and Germany would be unable to comply with American pressure due to their need for Russian energy.

However, America and Britain, in addition to France, where Macron is at this stage facing electoral upheavals, and Germany, after the departure of Angela Merkel, had had different calculations and arrangements; this is why Putin hinted at France and Germany during his latest speech and pointed out that they had inclined towards the US, which according to him, was unacceptable to Russia.

Faced with this reality, in which Russia’s gamble failed him, Putin found himself compelled to pursue his military escalation to dominate and dismember Ukraine, lay siege to her cities and strike the strongholds of the nationalists opposing Russia in an attempt to exact an agreement which would impinge on the American plan pertinent to the Russian lebensraum and European energy security, and impose, at least, Ukraine’s neutrality in the geostrategic aspect, especially as his battle with Ukraine is in fact a battle with the US who has exploited the Ukrainian government to achieve her aims, a narrative Ukrainian President Zelensky did not shy away from when he accepted to discuss Ukraine’s neutrality; i.e., he admitted his affiliation to the US and his partiality. Hence, Putin hastened to take the decision to go to war at all costs since accepting Ukraine’s membership to NATO and her embracing of the Western liberal model in governance, economy and sociology, would extend the erosion of the Russian lebensraum to Russia proper, and this is what America had heralded by inducing the Chechen war and infiltrating the Russian political milieu in a manner that nearly led to placing Russia within the ranks of client states and making her squander all her riches through the privatisation policy executed by America’s men in Russia such as Sergei Kiriyenko and Anatoly Chubais.

During the press conference he held on 1 February, Vladimir Putin said “I still believe the US is not concerned about Ukraine’s security though they may be thinking about it on the sideline. America’s main aim is to contain Russia’s development and growth. This is all there is to it. And in this sense, Ukraine is merely a tool to achieve this aim. This could be done in various ways: through luring us into some armed conflicts, or compelling her allies in Europe to impose harsh sanctions on us, as the US is talking today.”

Although Putin realised that America had left him no choice but to invade Ukraine, this however does not mean he will proceed in the American trap to the end. He has rather set a host of aims designed to recapture Ukraine to either Russian affiliation or neutrality, irrespective of the costs, knowing that Russia’s gambles have been unsuccessful ever since the Soviet Union’s era in the face of sprawling American influence, which it could not confront with military power alone. A clear example of this notion was reflected in the American trap for Russia in Afghanistan; in an interview with French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed in 1988 that the CIA had laid a trap for Moscow by arming the Mujahideen to fight the Soviet-backed government in Kabul, six months before the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

As for Putin’s wager on China, it was also unsuccessful because China’s interests lie with America and Europe more than they do with Russia. China is attempting to strike a balance between her relationship with Russia and her relationship with the West at a time when Putin does not want her to be neutral. America has been aware of this narrative, which prompted her to warn China against helping Russia. Consequently, Putin was left with the option of shoring up the domestic front, and this is why he launched during his latest speech a scathing attack on the “fifth columnists”, describing them as “insects stuck in the mouth” and calling on the masses to “spit them out”. His speech also tackled the West’s banking on the sanctions and on exaggerating the Russian military losses. He called on the masses to place Russian nationalist sovereignty ahead of personal expediencies; this alludes to the presence of a treason and an American infiltration of the close circle of his clique. It also indicates that Putin will pursue his struggle against America by relying on military escalation and imposing Ukraine’s neutrality by force or through a face-saving compromise. In this context, America could endorse an agreement on a ceasefire, to which Ukrainian President alluded by saying he was “open to negotiations on Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk”, especially as America has achieved what she had wanted, and especially as prolonging the war would increase American gains and weaken Putin further and drive him to resort to excessive force and thus aggravate the Europeans’ trepidations towards him.

Hence, any agreement to end the war will not turn the clock back and it will leave Ukraine under threat to keep Europe in a constant state of anxiety and subsequently nurture the European apprehensions, especially as the devastation exacted by Russia on Ukrainian cities and the Russian nuclear threat brings Europe back to the memories of the Second World War and its horrors. All this is in the interest of the US as the Ukrainian war has led to increasing the defence budgets of Germany and Italy to meet the criteria set by the US for NATO member states; this was reflected in several contracts for the purchase of American weapons including F35 jetfighters and anti-ballistic missile defense system THAAD which the US exhibited recently in the Emirates in shooting down the missiles of al-Houthi, and the contracts for the purchase of Javelin, the anti-tank missiles.

Hence, America is compelling the Europeans to pay the price of the American security umbrella which would allow her to shift her expenditure for hegemony purposes elsewhere in the world. As for the fallouts of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, America and Russia are in fact both effective enemies of the Muslims; despite their divergent interests, they however agree, together with other countries of the Capitalist world, on preventing the Muslims from achieving liberation. Such a reality, in which Western interests have clashed, and although it may somehow benefit the Muslims, it however could not be expected to unshackle the Islamic Ummah from the dominion of belligerent and covetous international powers; this is because Putin achieving his aims would not prevent America from pursuing her ghoulish comportment throughout the world, and towards the Muslims in particular, especially as Putin does not aspire to jostle with America on the world scene; he has rather proved on several occasions that he has been on America’s side in her aggression against the Muslims and in plundering their resources. He allowed America to use Russian military bases and Russian lebensraum’s airspace to attack Afghanistan, and he also colluded with America to prevent the collapse of Bashar Assad’s regime and extinguish the “Syrian revolution”. Moreover, Putin’s victory in the Ukraine war would deter the Muslim Central Asian countries from thinking about liberation.

As for the US, she has achieved what she had wanted since Russia moved militarily to invade Ukraine. She has rallied the European states behind her and forced China to observe a certain amount of neutrality, at least in this battle, especially as China does have any interest in the sanctions imposed on Russia. America has also redefined “the West” and redesigned the relationships with Europe on the grounds of setting aside all political rifts and economic interests for the sake of upholding the “common values of liberal democracy.” America has also achieved the main aim in respect of controlling Europe through NATO, with European financing and American weapons, embedding the threat on energy security in Europe thanks to the Russian war on Ukraine, and dismantling Europe’s confidence in Putin after the departure of Angela Merkel who had been persistent on completing the Nord Stream 2 project and good relations with Russia. This is because weaning Europe off Russian energy would weaken the relationship between them and deepen the state of uncertainty and the Russian threats to Europe; it would also make the American areas of influence in Africa and the Middle East a source for European energy. Consequently, Europe would have no choice but to depend fully on the US in confronting the Russian threat, achieving the continent’s energy security and security her energy supplies. In this context, the US-Iranian nuclear agreement is being reanimated in Geneva, the political situation in Libya is being tackled and the relationship between the US and Venezuela is being smoothed with the aim of reinstating them in the world’s energy market. OPEC, for its part, is being directed towards increasing production to regulate gas and oil prices, and China is being dragged towards Saudi, as bin Salman’s invitation of the Chinese President to visit Saudi coincided with Russia’s attempts to lean economically, financially and diplomatically on China. Bin Salman’s initiative was undoubtedly inspired by America with the aim of neutralising China at this stage, alienating her from Russia in the energy sector and steering her towards the Gulf in order to control her energy security.

Although this war has rekindled the memory of the Muslims and drawn their attention to the racist and ugly face of the West; it has even drawn their attention to the ruling cliques in the Muslims’ lands who have let down their brethren in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Kashmir, Palestine, Syria and Iraq. This war has also exposed the cowardice of the rulers who did not dare sympathise with their peoples and come to their aid as the Western leaders did with Ukraine. Although the Kuffar’s destroying of their homelands and with their own hands has evoked the sense of revenge from those who had oppressed them, the outcomes of this war however will not change the nature of confrontation between the Muslims and their enemies throughout the world; i.e., the conditions will not change and they will not be able to influence international relations until they change their inner selves: Allah the Almighty says “Verily, Allah does not change the condition of people until they change what is within themselves.” [al-Ra’ad-11]

The Muslims should be wary, amid the American strategy towards Russia and China, of being harnessed yet again in this war as firewood or a cannonball under the name of Jihad for the sake of Allah, as it has been noted that the Capitalist West and the decisionmakers in the US are overwhelmed by a wave of hysteria induced by greed and egoism; hence, the notion of throwing all their weapons in their struggle, including rekindling Jihad and dragging the Muslims into an inferno that has nothing to do them, cannot be ruled out. Reminding the Muslims of their history in Ukraine, the mufti of Ukraine’s call upon the Muslims to declare Jihad against Russia, the mufti of Russia’s claims that the Russian war is legitimate and America’s highlighting of the grievance of the Uyghur Muslims in China, all this is not innocent; and the Muslim is never stung from the same hole twice.

16 Sha’aban 1443h
19 March 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

The Quad: US Tool to Codify Global Principles & Systems 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Quad: US Tool to Codify Global Principles & Systems

The American vision to lead the world in the 21st century requires unilateral dominion of the American capitalist paradigm, which is built on downsizing the role of the state, liberal market and free trade, and which, allegedly, represents “the best form of government to unleash human aspirations and guide the relations between all the world’s nations and peoples.”

In order to fulfil this vision, the US harnesses all her resources to protect and propagate her Capitalist paradigm and remove the obstacles it may face. The point at issue for America is decisive and liked to the ideology upon which she is built, and through which the Capitalist class, multinationals and pressure groups, i.e., the lobbies, control the fate of the world, its resources and riches, sometimes through soft power and other times through hard power to coerce other states to succumb to their volition.

This occurrence is clearly reflected in the approach of successive US administrations and the approach of Joe Biden who has adopted “diplomatic priority” as a tool to renovate and “modernise international institutions to make sure they are fit for purpose,” considering that strengthening America’s security is linked to her unilateral dominion over the international situation, her influence over international institutions and her shaping of the system and principles of the world order.

Although America’s foreign position is stable with no other power jostling with her over the international situation, since Russia and China do not have any military or political tendencies beyond their regional lebensraums, which may undermine American unilateral dominion, the relationship between America and China is however tinged with rivalry due to America’s endeavour to achieve absolute economic dominance; this has inevitably turned China and her transnational economic aspirations into a challenge for America in the current century. America has even amplified China’s status and ambition to the point where she has been warning against her political and economic behaviour, as per the strategy of US national security pertinent to a ”new agenda of strategic competition between world powers”, which alluded to the fact that certain powers have started to “impose their regional and international influence” and have been working seriously to challenge the American geopolitical perks and acquisitions in a bid “to exploit the free and open rules-based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favour”. America pointed out that China and her communist party constituted nowadays the main challenge to the free world. All this was designed to justify the political and economic measures the US administration intends to adopt towards China. This was corroborated on the eve of the June 2021 G7 summit by Joe Biden who said “democracies face an existential battle against autocracies” in reference to dictatorial regimes in China and Russia in particular. It was also evidently reflected in the updated “Atlantic Charter” and its nine axes, which aims at besieging China in the first instance and then Russia, thus achieving America’s endeavours to mobilise the “democracies” behind Biden’s vision for the “war of the models”. Meanwhile, China’s defence minister denied his country’s yearning for regional dominion or political jostling; he said “Those who allege the theory of China seeking political rivalry, we say to them: we only want to broaden the channels of free trade and commercial exchange between countries and establish world peace.”

US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expounded the process of diplomacy and alliance by saying that the President was “speaking out powerfully about the common purpose and common strength of democracies [which]is an important part of a collective effort to be able to meet the China challenge over the decades ahead.” He meant that Biden had combined all misgivings and challenges facing the allies, including Pompeo’s accusations that China had made “efforts to steal data across networks, which you just referred to in terms of the decision Australia made, or militarise the South China Sea… or engage in activities where they foist money on nations that are desperate for resources and leave them trapped in debt, debt positions, which ultimately aren't about commercial transactions, but are about political control,” in addition to evoking the issues of the Uyghur Muslims, Honk Kong, Huawei and the “China virus”, and thus reproducing the image of China so that she may become the main challenge facing the free world today.

All this was in response to China starting to build her relationships outside the frameworks of “international norms” by linking her neighbours among others to her leading economic system, which is built on the state’s investment in basic and strategic industries and civilian and military abilities, which has given China several achievements in technology and supply chains, and enabled her to dominate the channels and instruments for control, communication and information, especially in the technology of quantum computers which can perform complex calculations in fractions of a second, encrypt documents and military and financial instructions.

It is common knowledge that America is the official sponsor in charge of taking China out of isolation. She integrated China into the world Capitalist community and granted her a seat in the Group of Twenty (G20), membership in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a prominent status at the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other world organisations, not to mention the US, European, Japanese and Gulf investments totalling hundreds of billions of dollars. However, all this was on condition that China would carry out market reforms and adhere to the regulations of international organisations and institutions, i.e., to move towards the free market. Since China is not affiliated to America but rather an independent state, it is natural, taking into account her interests, for her to not adhere literally to these conditions. It is expected that China will deviate from the formulated frameworks, the political and economic boundaries and the margin of manoeuvre. This prompted Pompeo to warn China by saying America would not remain idle and would confront China; he called on China to adhere to international systems and laws.

And based on the findings of US National Security charter and US Indo-Pacific strategy, which confirmed that Asia was the most important region, the US set up the framework that would achieve her strategic vision towards China, namely compelling adherence to international norms and laws, and set about containing China through military preparation, alliances and strong links through a regional network. This is why she established the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which includes America, Japan, India and Australia, to be a new democratic alliance aimed at confronting and besieging China, and preventing her from continuing to control the foundations of rapprochement with neighbouring countries and the areas of her economic expansion. America resorted to the style of reprimanding, humiliating, blackmailing and subjecting other countries to her demands; Pompeo slammed Australia in a public address in Sydney by saying “Yeah. Look, you can sell your soul for a pile of soya beans or you can protect your people.”

China reiterated through the speech delivered by her defence minister Wei Fenghe at Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore “the need to respect the core interests of China, because it would be impossible for any country to think that China would allow her sovereignty, security and developmental interests to be undermined.” He reemphasised that Taiwan and Honk Kong were a red line, that any vision for the security of the region should take into account the common security interests of the countries of the region, and that it would be implausible to resort to security blocs as a means to settle regional issues.

China has also described the QUAD as “sea scum” but the Biden administration went ahead and initiated the QUAD through the Washington Summit last September, during which it confirmed the grounds of cooperation between the member states to enhance security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.

Hence, America turned the QUAD into a core institutional component in her geopolitical approach to the region; this approach, corroborated by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and the RAND Corporation, involves harnessing a “regional group with influence and capable of supporting and shoring up the American values.” America has initiated several political steps and actions to corroborate this role such as exhorting the EU to declare a similar policy and cooperate directly with the countries of the region with the aim of finalising free trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand and India to shrink their link and dependence on the Chinese economy.

Examples of actions the QUAD has been designing to amend the norms and laws is what is pertinent to transferring new sophisticated technology in smart microchips and quantum computers, and which is stipulated by the document on “Quad Principles on Technology Design, Development, Governance and Use.” This resulted in setting up a host of customs mechanisms and regulations and exports rules to meet the common interests and values, and prevent the export of technologies to China or any of her military institutions. These steps are designed to “establish a secure supply chain for semiconductors”, 75% of which are produced by East Asian countries although the six largest multinationals which design these are American. Another example is the QUAD’s “objection to the unilateral and coercive attempts to change the status quo in the East and South China Sea,” which has culminated in adopting the maritime law treaty in order to meet the challenge to the maritime rules-based order, especially the East and South China Sea, and in increasing the “freedom of navigation patrols” and bolstering maritime military presence through naval drills that including those of Australia, New Zealand and Japan. It has also generated an agreement to launch a joint initiative to map capacity, identify vulnerabilities and bolster strategic supply chains,” which involve the highest economic and financial risks as they rely heavily on the Chinese economy in respect of products pertinent to or having an impact on national security. Losses of the world’s car industry is estimated at $60 billion due to the inability to import semiconductors, the manufacturing of which is dominated by South Asian countries, especially China and Taiwan. This explains why Biden mentioned in his State of the Union speech the investment of Intel Corporation.

Innovating the styles and means to effectuate political visions and achieve the aims expected of them, and putting the strategies into implementation, is part of political leadership craftsmanship, and part of the accessories of awareness and a characteristic of the statesmen who perceive that politics is governing people’s affairs and transferring political thought to the palpable reality and the domestic and foreign relationships. The leadership, to which those working for revival aspire, should in the first instance be an intellectual leadership so that it may have an authority. This authority cannot be effective and influential unless the ideology upon which it is built rests on a spiritual foundation, i.e., unless it is based on a rational doctrine built on Iman in Allah, the Creator and Planner, and from which a system emanates. This is what America and the conventional powers lack, which means that their intellectual well is about to dry up, their civilisational glitter is about to fade and their hegemony over the world is about to end. The chickens of the Capitalist ideology have come home to roost in the shape of a ferocious war between Russia and the West. The hopes of the Ummah, and even the entire world, are pinned on the magnificent Islam, whose return to the realm of life to project its radiance, justice, and bliss, needs only the men whose loyalty to Allah the Almighty eclipses all other loyalties.

7 Sha’aban 1443h
10 March 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Biden’s State of the Union Speech 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Biden’s State of the Union Speech

Less than a month ago Joe Biden was facing considerable criticism chiefly because of his inability to unify the ranks of the Democratic Party and its reforms agenda, the highest inflation levels for thirty years in the US, his failure to build bridges of cooperation with the Republicans as he pledged in his inaugural speech a year ago and the increase in the crime rate, not to mention the possibility of the Democratic Party losing the midterm elections of November 2022. However, he succeeded thanks to the Ukrainian crisis and the Russian invasion that ensued to recapture the political momentum in his favour and to redirect the discourse towards Russia who represents the common enemy of the masses and the American political class, especially as the Democrats and the Republicans are in agreement over the standpoint vis-à-vis Russia and as Biden had been accused of being weak in dealing with Putin. Biden also succeeded in highlighting anew his main agenda which revolves around the issue of the “war of models” between democracy and autocracy, a state characterised by institutions, the concepts of freedom, justice, and the rule of law and the “tyrannical systems and dictatorship”. This moral and value-based tone in the speech of Biden was not directed at America alone, but also linked to the events in Ukraine and the forthcoming dealings with China. This means his speech was directed at Europe to muzzle the materialistic expedient tendency that has for so long impinged on the attempts at dismantling the relationship with Russia and made Europe hesitate on the economic relations with China and her companies such as Huawei.

On the other hand, and in an attempt to demonise Donald Trump and his followers in the Republican Party and cushion the blow of the Republicans’ libels, especially in respect of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden said, “He thought he could divide us at home…. But Putin was wrong. We are ready. We are united. And that’s what we did: We stayed united,” in a bid to compare Donald Trump’s defeat in the elections to what Putin gambled on in his war on Ukraine. Biden harnessed the emotional atmosphere overwhelming public opinion and hostility towards Russia and commented on being accused of failing to build bridges of cooperation with the Republicans by saying, “While it often appears we do not agree and that — we — we do agree on a lot more things than we acknowledge. I signed 80 bipartisan bills into law last year.”

It is clear Biden had designed his speech and initiated it with the Ukrainian issue in order to achieve this purpose, namely unifying the Senate and the House of Representatives; he said, “Yes. We, the United States of America, stand with the Ukrainian people.” He harnessed the Ukrainian crisis to remind his audience that, “Tonight we meet as Democrats, Republicans, and independents, but, most importantly, as Americans with a duty to one another, to America, to the American people, and to the Constitution, and an unwavering resolve that freedom will always triumph over tyranny.” He focused on Putin personally, considering he is one of the fiercest opponents of Liberalism which the American political system across the board embraces. This was reflected in the several standing ovations he received, which in turn projected a very rare instance of unified ranks in US Congress which has often been the scene of deep rifts. This enabled Biden to allude to his major achievement, namely restoring the unity of the American people following the deep divisions that Donald Trump inflicted among the American people.

Biden also elucidated the leading role he had performed to rally the ranks of the Western alliance saying that it did not merely include European states but “the Asian and African continents” as well, and reiterating that, “The United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory that is NATO territory with the full force of our collective power — every single inch.” He said that his unwavering standpoint towards Putin made Europe more united and harmonious, and led to the return of cohesion within NATO and the EU under US leadership. He also responded positively with the calls of domestic Russian opposition to call corrupt Russian officials to account; he announced that the US Treasury had set up a special team to monitor and investigate all the Russian oligarchs and confiscate their properties, funds, investments, and assets, and hold them accountable for their crimes; he said, “Tonight, I say to the Russian oligarchs and the corrupt leaders who’ve bilked billions of dollars off this violent regime: No more.”

Joe Biden’s administration did not conceal the purpose of undermining the Russian economy through sanctions, namely drying up the arteries of the Russian defence budget and exerting pressure on the Russian masses to rebel against Putin and his entourage. As for America’s domestic file, he seized the moment to play down the impact of the sanctions imposed on Russia and their fallouts on the US economy, and to propagate his achievements for electoral purposes. He explained that all the sanctions would be counterproductive and costly for the US economy, but that was the price of supporting freedom; he said he had taken a host of steps to reduce the cost by releasing 30 million oil barrels from the US strategic reserves as part of a step taken by several states to release 60 million barrels. He also attempted to expound the importance of the financial decisions he had taken by reminding his audience that US economy had grown by 5.7% in 2021, and generated 5.6 million new jobs, and slamming the decision of his predecessor to spend $2 trillion in reducing taxes of which the top one percent of Americans benefitted and which failed to achieve the pledges made to justify this tax cut, and instead, led to weak economic growth, low wages and a huge economic deficit, in addition to causing the widest gap between the rich and the rest of the citizens. He said, “When we use taxpayers’ dollars to rebuild America, we’re going to do it by buying American. Buy American products. Support American jobs.”

As for inflation, and in an attempt to sedate the masses regarding the narrowing of class distinctions and the flaws in the distribution of wealth, and in an attempt to market himself and generate an opportunity to salvage his presidency and the credentials of his party in the next midterm and presidential elections, he said, “I think I have a better idea to fight inflation: Lower your costs, not your wages,”; he added, “Look, economists call this increasing the productive capacity of our economy.” He demanded from pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of drugs and wondered why insulin was sold at 30 times its cost.

Joe Biden also alluded to the forthcoming phase, namely the confrontation with China; and by doing so, he was attempting to hijack and outdo the discourse of the Republican Party. He said “I’ve told Xi Jinping: It’s never been a good bet to bet against the American people,” adding that he had submitted to Congress “the bipartisan Innovation Act that will make record investments in emerging technologies and American manufacturing.” He announced that microchips company Intel would build a new plant costing $20 billion and that Intel’s CEO pledged to invest $100 billion to execute the plan of his company. Biden wanted to reassure the American people about the fallout of the forthcoming confrontation with China. He said that Ford would be “investing $11 billion in electric vehicles, creating 11,000 jobs across the country.” And General Motors would be “making the largest investment in its history — $7 billion to build electric vehicles, creating 4,000 jobs in Michigan.”

This announcement is extremely important as it is the first American investment after the threat of strategic supply chains had been accentuated and highlighted with China playing a focal role, especially throughout the pandemic.

It seems Joe Biden has succeeded in harnessing the Ukrainian crisis in averting what has been described a shortcoming in his political performance, especially in respect of the withdrawal from Afghanistan on which the Republican Party spokesperson focused, in addition to his mishandling of the Coronavirus pandemic fallouts that led to a sharp dwindling in his popularity credentials, which recently slumped to 37%, the lowest among his 12 predecessors after the first year of their tenures.

Biden has made of the State of the Union speech a tool to embellish his image, increase the credentials of his party and enhance the chance of his party in winning the next midterm elections by projecting the unity of Congress and the level of support given to his domestic and foreign policies, especially in respect of the Ukrainian crisis and standing up to Russia’s belligerence. He was eager to project total support for Ukraine by hosting the Ukrainian ambassador to Washington, Oksana Markarova, who sat to the right of the First Lady and was one of the guests of honour, and with several congresspersons flying the yellow and blue colours of Ukraine.

30 Rajab 1443h
3 March 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Germany's Strategic Shift on European Security & its Relationship with Russia 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Germany's Strategic Shift on European Security & its Relationship with Russia

In a speech described as historic and a quantum leap in German foreign and defence policy, during an extraordinary session of the Bundestag on Sunday 27 February, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that his country would increase military expenditure in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which he described as a “turning point in the history of our continent”, and which has demolished “the European security order that had prevailed for almost half a century since the Helsinki Final Act.” He said, “that the world afterwards will no longer be the same as the world before,” adding that “anyone who has watched his televised declaration of war on Ukraine, can no longer have any doubt that Putin wants to build a Russian empire…. He wants to fundamentally redefine the status quo within Europe in line with his own vision. And he has no qualms about using military force to do so.” The German Chancellor said Germany would from now on invest more than 2% of her GDP on defence. He also announced allocating a €100 billion fund to reequip the army, knowing that the German army paid for the price of German unification by reducing its forces and doing away with 3250 tanks in 30 years. Germany also intends to implement a host of plans to halve her dependence on Russian gas; this is what the US has been seeking all along. A German editor admitted that America dominated all German media outlets through transatlantic organisations and described Germany as an American colony.

It is known that America’s call for liberalism is confined to two aspects, namely free trade, which enables capitalists to dominate the economy and the political decision-making of other countries, and the political aspect which lends legitimacy to the systems affiliated to her; it also enables the US to intervene under the guise of protecting “democracy”. But in fact, America tends to evoke the nationalist populist tendencies in order to impede the expansion of major powers such as Russia, since nationalism is not a fitting message that a superpower could convey to other nations and peoples, considering that it aims at spreading nationalistic sovereignty on other nations; this is what people tend to resist and this is why Hitler failed in his invasion of Russia and Europe. Moreover, America’s support for populist tendencies contributes to fragmenting states and evoking problems among them, and thus making it easier to control them, in addition to justifying interference in their affairs under the guise of protecting minorities. In this context, the US has been promoting nationalism in the areas of the former Soviet Union, and even in the Russian Federation itself, as was the case in Chechenia. America is also supporting populist tendencies in Europe, and reviving German militarism and the concepts of grandeur, exactly like what Britain did by evoking Arab nationalism to dismantle the Ottoman State.

What is remarkable in the Ukrainian crisis is America’s provocation of Putin through the scale of military support for Ukraine, and by focusing political and media reports, especially American and British, on Russia’s losses and her failure to enter Ukrainian cities and on accentuating the unprecedented sanctions to lure Putin into seeking to compensate for the deficits, flex his muscles, threaten to use nuclear weapons and spread terror throughout Europe. All this falls within a double-edged American strategy whereby she would besiege the opponent from all sides, and thus changing the German vision of the relationship with Russia, making the security fears take precedence over the economic interests between the two countries and subsequently, reviving German militarism. This explains why some of Russia’s reactions serve the interests of the US. In this context, it would be implausible to negate some of the aspects of the Russo-American concordance in international politics, European security, and strategic stability. However, concordance in certain issues should not be generalised, especially the issue of reviving German militarism which has constituted a Russian nightmare throughout history, and especially that Russia does not seek a hostile relationship with Germany for major economic considerations, and the same could be said about Germany.

Hence, a Russo-American concordance on Ukraine is non-existent; there is rather a genuine struggle. By reading the strategy of Russian national security of 2015 and 2021, in addition to the notable message of Putin when he assumed power, we deduce that Putin has real aspirations to regain Russia’s power and strengthen her influence within her lebensraum; he also has genuine apprehensions over NATO’s expansion eastwards. Early in 2021 Putin requested from the US the signing of a document pertinent to security guarantees but Joe Biden rejected it immediately describing it as too extreme.

Hence, Putin is undertaking a host of measures and making some choices which are known to serve America, but he has no choice; therefore, his choices cannot be deemed as a collusion with America who has been targeting Russia and threatening the future of Putin himself. It would be inconceivable for Putin to conspire against his personal interest, or against Russian national security, or partake in changing the German standpoint with regard to dispatching weapons to areas of conflict and increasing the defence budget or driving German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to forsake his country’s neutrality in the relationship with Russia and the Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin wants none of this but the sharp American strategy has reduced his options to the basis of the lesser of the two evils and led him into a direction that paved the way for America and Germany to make a U-turn and forsake their fundamental post-World War II constants in preparation for establishing a European security system in which Germany would be placed on a collision course with Russia on behalf of America, and thus snatching the European leadership from France, considering that Germany does not jostle with America and does not have an international influence like France.

Russia’s chief historical dilemma lies in the threat posed by the militarism of Germany who laid siege to several Russian cities during the Second World War; but Scholz played down this narrative by saying “We will not, therefore, allow this conflict between Putin and the free world to lead to the reopening of old wounds and to new outbreaks of hostility.” Hence, the size of the budget announced by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, namely €100 billion to rehabilitate the German military power and increase its expenditure to reach 2% of the GDP, in addition to the statements by German politicians and top brass on Germany’s military shortcomings, all this alludes to America’s endeavour to impose a dangerous security strategy that will lead to reviving German nationalistic emotions, threatening Russia, and making US weapons manufacturers and other industries laugh all the way to the bank. Hence, most of the pressure exerted on the US administration in its tackling of the Russian file and in militarising international conflicts has been instigated by the military industries’ lobby. This indicates that America is effectively aiming to assign to Germany a focal role in European security and within NATO, whose budget is set to increase, and subsequently, place Germany on a collision course with Russia so that she may focus on the Chinese challenge.

In this regard, America is harnessing the Russian war to regulate the world order to deal with China in the future, and to send a strongly worded message through the economic carnage she inflicted on Russia, lest the Chinese leadership should think about invading Taiwan or changing the security system in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The message is also aimed at the regions and countries threatened by China to induce them to seek American protection and steer India towards more integration into the American plan for China.

Hence, America is attempting to corner China in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean and neutralise her through pressing her to condemn Russia. On the other hand, she is reassuring Germany and Europe with regard to energy issues through the Euro-American energy partnership, which was corroborated by the European Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson who in 2019 stated that “cooperation between the EU and the US in the trade of liquid natural gas has been successful and should continue.” Algeria for her part has recently announced that she would be committed to securing the supply of gas for Europe. America has even been encouraging the Europeans to opt for alternative energy and striving to secure Ukraine’s energy needs, should Russia decide to cease supplying her with energy, by linking the Ukrainian and European energy systems, an initiative welcomed by European countries yesterday, and turning Ukraine into a European farm for natural alternative energy and nuclear energy; this is because the German people are averse to producing nuclear energy on their lands, and consequently, weaning Germany off Russian gas, which requires exploiting the nuclear energy of Ukraine.

On the other hand, we note that Britain has been encouraging the standpoints of the Germans and their move towards militarisation to weaken France, in a cheap attempt at fishing in troubled waters, book a front seat in European security, and prove the shortcomings of the French vision which suggests that NATO is brain-dead. France has been silent over the German shift towards militarism due to the pressures of the Ukrainian crisis and its fallouts, and over Macron’s inability to do anything save for pleading with Putin, not to mention his impotence in the face of the Russian threat to Europe and the evaporation of his notion of European strategic independence from America, knowing that isolating Russia internationally would generate a vacuum that Britain wishes to fill.

For his part, Putin has apparently miscalculated and is meeting resistance in Ukraine, which requires of him upping the ante. He wants to warn NATO member states against being excessive in their military support for Ukraine. The West has tested the pulse of Putin with the military aid it has offered Ukraine in order to generate the grounds for further steps and achieve a breakthrough for NATO such as imposing a no-fly zone in west Ukraine, speeding up the admission of Ukraine into the EU, and deploying weapons and troops on Ukrainian territory which are the nearest point to the Russian capital. In this context it would be possible to read the statements, threats, and fears of Putin. This is why the Russian military operations are concentrated in the east and the south along the Ukrainian Black Sea coastline and up to the Ukrainian-Rumanian borders and the Ukrainian-Moldovan borders, which Russia has been dominating since the independence of the Moldovan republic from the province of Transnistria, in order to isolate Ukraine from Europe save for the Ukrainian-Polish borders, while continuing to dismember Ukraine, prepare for the fall of the capital Kiev, and force the surrender of her government and replace it with a government loyal to Russia.

28 Rajab 1443h
1 March 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

Russia’s Attack on Ukraine 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Review of Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on the morning of Thursday 24 February the launch of a military operation in the province of Donbas in east Ukraine. It transpired later that the operation was widened as it reached the seaport of Odesa, Kherson, the seaport of Mariupol and the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital Kiev that day.

Putin said in a televised statement “The West left us with zero option…. What is occurring now is necessary as we have been left no other option”. He stressed that “Now they also claim to possess nuclear weapons. We will not allow this to be done…. Russia does not plan to occupy Ukrainian lands. Russia deems it important that all Ukrainian people should enjoy the right to self-determination.” He emphasised that “Russia cannot feel safe and continue to exist and develop under the constant threat from Ukraine. Moscow’s attempts to agree on non-expansion of NATO were in vain; and the situation on a NATO expansion has become more dangerous and we can no longer keep silent.” He added “For the US and her allies, this is a policy of containing Russia but for us it is a real threat to the existence of the state.” With regard to the Ukrainian crisis, Putin warned the West by saying “Russia is being pushed against the wall.” This was reemphasised by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov who said “the US is using Ukraine to deter Russia. NATO has endeavoured to integrate Ukraine and Georgia and disregarded our security vision. We attempted to persuade Kiev and the West to implement the Minsk agreements, but our attempts were in vain. He added “the current regime in Kiev is subservient to the US, the West and the Neo-Nazis. The Ukrainian President has failed to adhere to the Minsk Protocol, concluded an alliance with NATO and sought to procure nuclear weapons.” For his part, Russian intelligence chief said “Russia will not allow Ukraine to turn into a dagger in the hands of America.” All this reflects the real apprehensions and the fundamental causes of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.

Russia had provided the pretext for her military operation by officially recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces from Ukraine, in addition to the Russian parliament’s ratification of the bill stipulating dispatching military forces abroad, and Putin issuing a decree ordering the dispatching of military forces to the two separatist regions, as per the request of their administrations, for support from President Putin to repel the aggression of the Ukrainian military forces.

This means the Russian preparations to invade Ukraine and thwarting her membership to NATO by force had been prearranged in anticipation of a failure to reach a political solution with America, and of his banking on the ability of France and Germany to resist the US pressures to preserve their interests with Russia being fruitless. It also means that America had known all along what Russia had been planning; this is why she refused to provide any security guarantees as she wanted to lure Russia into a military action leading to her isolation and to destroying her relationship with Europe, especially France and Germany, the biggest losers from the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. This was explicitly expressed by the German government spokesperson who said that suspending Russia from the SWIFT global interbank payments system would be technically difficult to arrange and would have a massive impact on transactions for Germany and German businesses in Russia, adding that a number of states had been against putting any sanctions on Russia related to oil and gas delivery. Therefore, the German President appealed to Putin to stop “this crazy war.”

No sooner the military operation had begun than a Western political and media campaign condemning the Russian onslaught was launched. Russia was threatened with severe sanctions and European states and NATO called for urgent meetings to assess the Russian war in Ukraine and debate the sanctions to be imposed on Russia.

By reading the statements of Russian, Ukrainian and European officials, it transpires that what had been confirmed earlier, in respect of expanding NATO to include Ukraine with America’s incitement and a Franco-German apprehension, was designed to generate a hotbed of tension on the Russian borders and to besiege her in one of the most important areas of her vital and geostrategic sphere. Ukraine’s membership to NATO, or deploying NATO forces therein, would shackle Russia’s hands and prevent her from using force against Ukraine. Russia’s intelligence chief had warned of Ukraine becoming a dagger in the hands of America. America’s aim is to perpetuate the state of uncertainty and the inability to predict Putin’s behaviour as the regulator of the Russo-European relationship to justify the continuance of NATO and America’s manipulation of Europe’s security.

In this context, it would be safe to say that Biden has succeeded in luring Putin into a military action that has sent shivers down Europe’s spine after America had rejected the guarantees sought by Russia, the most important of which was expanding NATO towards Russia. Biden has also succeeded in portraying the Russian aggression against Ukraine as an aggression against Europe and the values of freedom and democracy. He hastened with Britain to strengthen NATO forces in the Baltic states and eastern Europe. He has also succeeded in mobilising the European states in imposing sanctions on Russia by exploiting France’s EU presidency and Germany’s G7 presidency, the two states that had attempted to settle the crisis politically to avert its impacts on them. It seems that America has excluded the energy sector and the SWIFT system from the sanctions due to their fallouts on Europe, and to encourage France and Germany to impose sanctions on Putin and the fiscal system between Europe and Russia. Hence, US President Joe Biden stressed in a joint statement with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 28 January the presence of a common commitment to preserve energy security in Europe.

It is common knowledge that the sanctions will weaken Russia and undermine the relations between the Russians and the Europeans and widen the wedge between them. Meanwhile, Europe’s united standpoint and her rallying behind the US will enable America in the future to lead Europe in accordance with the unified standpoints of NATO and the values of freedom and democracy. This was corroborated by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during a joint press briefing with the NATO Secretary General; she said “this crisis will bring us even closer together…. We are more united and more determined than ever. We are one union, one alliance, united in purpose.”
As for Russia’s military aims, they are indicated by the axes of the Russian onslaught that targeted the province of Donbas in order to regain the administrative areas that had been affiliated to the province before 2014 and which are beyond the control of the separatists, and targeted also the strategic coastal belt in the area of Kherson which links the province of Donbas to the Crimean Peninsula, to regain control of the water source which the Ukrainian government had cut off, in addition to the attack on the seaports of Odesa and Mariupol with the aim of paralysing the Ukrainian economy incite the masses against the government and exert pressure on Zelensky to resign. The Russian army wants to get close to the Moldovan republic, which is close to Odesa, and intimidate its government with regard to the file of the breakaway Transnistria region which is loyal to Russia and which hosts the Russian 14th army stationed on the borders with Romania. As for the attack from the Belarusian side, it aims at dominating the Chernobyl nuclear reactor and the strategic Gostomel airport, and subsequently, besieging the capital Kiev, a target that has now become evident. Russia’s aims are reflected conspicuously in the statement of Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov who said “once we complete this military operation and liberate Ukraine from militarisation, we will allow its people to determine their future. We will only be ready to negotiate once the conditions of Putin are met, namely that Ukraine lay down its weapons and form a government representing everyone.”

This makes the option of entering Kiev or besieging it and toppling the government or forcing it to be neutral by force probable. However, Lavrov reassured Europe by saying: “Russia will regain peace in Ukraine quickly and will prevent a greater conflict in Europe.” As for the Ukrainian president’s request to meet President Putin, and his readiness to negotiate with Russia, even on the issue of neutrality, it is but an attempt to slow the move towards the capital and to dissuade Putin from entering Kiev and toppling the government. The statements of Lavrov and Putin allude to an intention to change the Ukrainian government, or force it to surrender by force, or even divide it and take it out of the sphere of US influence. This narrative was indicated by the Ukrainian President and its omens were reflected in the process of the military operations. As for the grievances of the Ukrainian President ahead of the NATO meeting suggesting that Ukraine was left alone, it is designed to embarrass Europe and exert pressure on her to take a strong stand in the face of the Russians. He said “the European response is insufficient and the aid is also not enough while the Russian tanks are attacking our people. Russia is now attempting to divide Ukraine. We want from Europe to expel Russian ambassadors, isolate Russia and strengthen the sanctions against her. I urge the European citizens to take to the streets to exert pressure on their governments to take decisive decisions.” For his part, President Putin called on “the Ukrainian army to seize the reins of power”, since he realises that the army understands best the Russian military threat and that it could be relied on with regard to the possibility of being responsive to the Russian demands. Putin expressed this narrative by saying “agreement between us would be easier if you assumed power.”

America will probably approve negotiations between Ukraine and Russia to bide time and impinge on Russia’s plan to dominate Ukraine and topple her government, or divide Ukraine, and thus negotiate from a position of strength, especially as America has now achieved the aim of dragging Russia into a military action that has terrified Europe, corroborated its presence in eastern Europe and the Baltic states, and led Europe to impose sanctions on Russia. However, Putin is unlikely to engage in any negotiation before displaying his force and tightening his grip on Kiev, lay siege to it, and recover the areas of Donbas lost in 2014, to save his blushes before domestic public opinion and to preserve Russia’s grandeur before his allies in the region and before NATO and the entire world.

Nevertheless, the unfolding events do not affect the unipolar international situation, though it may enhance Russia’s international presence, especially now that Putin has succeeded in doing what he had wanted, even by resorting to military force. Hence, this war will lead to corroborating Russia’s security situation and weakening Western influence in Ukraine and its impact on Russia, while America will achieve her aims in respect of her influence in Europe and in entrenching the notion of the Russian threat which has always been resisted by France and Germany; and there will be no consolation for Ukraine’s collaborating rulers who have sacrificed their country in service of US interests.

24 Rajab 1443h
25 February 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

The Crisis Between Russia and Ukraine - Causes and Trajectories 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Crisis Between Russia and Ukraine - Causes and Trajectories

The tempo of events between Russia and Ukraine has been accelerating. The origin of these events is a struggle whose theme is the Russian vital interests and Western policies. Russia has been vigilantly and anxiously monitoring the activities of the Ukrainian leaders in respect of their current and future orientations vis-à-vis the relationship with Europe and the US, in addition to Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, while Ukraine has been viewing with deep concern what she considers a violation of her sovereignty following the March 2014 referendum when Russia decided to annex the Crimean Peninsula which was part of her lands in addition to the ongoing struggle in Donbas and Luhansk. These two provinces of her lands had announced their secession with Russian incitement and with the Duma recently recognising the independence of Donbas.

The new development in this crisis is the Russian troops on the Ukrainian borders with the aim of exerting pressure on Ukraine and intimidating her in respect of her endeavour to join NATO and lend her ear to the US. This has raised a host of persistent questions, including the potential eruption of the situation and its transformation into a major war.

In order to perceive the motives of the parties to the conflict, it would be imperative to acquaint ourselves with the beginning of the crisis, the Minsk Protocol and the rifts over its implementation, the influential parties, and the interests of the disputing sides and what they evoke in terms of issues pertinent to the struggle of identities and strategic tendencies between Russia and the US and the potentiality of the crisis developing into a conflict or a major war.

As for the beginning of the current crisis, it dates back to 21 November 2013, when the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych halted the preparations to execute a partnership agreement with the EU, the consequences of which were widespread protests and demonstrations, deteriorating conditions in the eastern and southern areas where the majority of the population is of Russian origin and loyal to President Yanukovych. And as the US-backed protests intensified and turned into a big revolution, parliament ousted President Yanukovych, who subsequently fled, on 22 February 2014 and replaced him by parliament speaker Oleksandr Turchynov. Meanwhile, Russia took control of the Crimean Peninsula and annexed it to the Russia Federation in one of largest annexation procedures witnessed by Europe since the Second World War. Subsequently, a war broke out in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast between separatists loyal to Russia and the Ukrainian government.

The US and the EU responded by imposing sanctions on Russia following her invasion of Crimea but the sanctions had no effective impact on the Russian economy; Russia continued to work towards acquiring a leveraging tool on the one hand, and a confidence-building window with European states to dissipate their security fears and nullify the US pretexts pertinent to the perils of the European relationship with Russia on the other hand. This was effectuated through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which made Germany dependent on Russia gas despite the political difficulties and impediments such as the Ukrainian crises that America has engineered to thwart the Russo-European understanding and maintain the state of uncertainty between them.

In fact, Russia has managed to orchestrate the crisis and avert an escalation with Ukraine during the past few years. However, Western manoeuvres and America’s incitement of Ukraine to provoke Russia through military infringements in the east and persisting on admitting the former into NATO, and even citing it in the country’s constitution, has infuriated Russia and led Putin to mobilise his forces along the Ukrainian borders from three sides, north, east, and south. This has made the crisis prone to eruption whenever America wanted to widen the wedge between Russia and Europe, especially Germany and France. Several observers interpreted this scenario as an imminent Russian invasion, as Russian military divisions moved thousands of kilometres towards the Ukrainian borders, Crimea, and Belarus, with their numbers reaching 200,000 soldiers according to Washington. As for the two Minsk agreements, their implementation is no longer practicable, and now that the Duma has voted for the independence of Donbas, they have become irrelevant, despite the persistence of both sides to implement the 2015 “Minsk Agreement” in full, which includes lending Ukrainian legitimacy to the lands torn apart by war within the political system of Ukraine, as per her wishes, while Russia insists on the independence of Donbas, and she has even effectively voted for this.

The motive behind this Russian comportment is the threat Russia has sensed from the Ukrainian policies and behaviours. Russia is endeavouring to establish herself as a geopolitical and geostrategic player in a region that has always been viewed as part of her vital interests, including Ukraine. Consequently, if these interests were physically threatened, Russia would resort to force to confront the threats and impose the secession of east, southeast Ukraine and up to the Crimean Peninsula by force. Moreover, Russia has changed her standpoint towards her interests in Ukraine to exceed rejecting the NATO membership of the latter, and to include rejecting categorically the increasing defence cooperation between Ukraine and the West and demanding the implementation of the West’s pledge pertinent to the military presence in Poland and the Baltic States, and at the same time, she has been endeavouring to review the agreements and settlements concluded after the Cold War, including regaining the regional security system so that she may have a role in European security. Hence, Russia is seeking a host of unconditional guarantees for her security today and in the future, and she would not accept a NATO expansion eastward to include Ukraine as Putin has declared. The direct threat that Russia dreads is Ukraine’s move towards European institutions so that her quest to join the EU and NATO may be accepted. Russia’s main concern is preventing such memberships or preventing Ukraine from hosting any NATO infrastructure on her lands. As for the further dimension of Russian interests, it is reflected in relinking the states that formed the former Soviet Union before its collapse, in order to preserve her lebensraum, which has started to be eroded due to the American infiltration. This is deemed a strategic security matter for the Russian side, especially President Vladimir Putin who is striving to keep Ukraine within the Russian strategic circle, a move corroborated by the common social, cultural and economic ties between Russia and Ukraine.

As for the Ukrainian interests, they are reflected in the fact that Ukraine represents a bridge between Russia and the EU. This geographic position makes her a link or a buffer zone between Russia and Europe. The Ukrainian interests manifest themselves in the endeavour to get rid of the Russian influence on the government and the capital in Ukraine, in addition to the inclination towards the West, and gaining membership to the EU and NATO. And although the electoral manifesto of Ukrainian President Zielinski stipulated a pledge to hold a dialogue and negotiate with Russia, and to pursue a diplomatic channel, and implement the Minsk agreements pertinent to the Donbas region in southeast Ukraine, he however changed his approach under the pressure of domestic chaos and the increasing patriotic streak nurtured by the US in Eastern European states and the former Soviet Union’s republics. Moreover, Ukraine has several apprehensions vis-à-vis the Russian standpoint such as being totally invaded; thus, she tends to amplify the West’s fears of a Russian expansion and urges Western powers to impose sanctions on Russia, considering that, in her view, such sanctions would contribute in weakening Russia and engrossing her in domestic social and nationalistic struggles, which would subsequently lead to recapturing Crimea and the rebellious areas, mainly Donbas.

On the other hand, Ukraine has several demands related to freedom of navigation; these demands were induced by the incident in which Russia seized three Ukrainian navy boats and their crews, claiming that they had illegally entered Russian territorial waters. This was one of the reasons that prompted Ukraine to seek NATO and EU membership and to believe that her future lies with the Europeans, as her EU membership would enable her to acquire a catalogue of economic perks that the EU offers while joining NATO would provide her with the security umbrella and protection of her existence; it would also shore up her negotiating position with Russia in respect of the dispute over the occupied Crimean Peninsula and the rebellious areas. This is the main point of dispute between Ukraine and Russia who, for her part, considers NATO’s presence close to her borders a strategic threat to her national security.

As for the American role in the crisis, it falls within the framework of downsizing Russia while keeping her a source of threat to Europe, even though America has on the surface been endeavouring to generate a form of strategic stability between her and Russia; Presidents Putin and Biden have met several times as part of their constant efforts to establish a stable relationship.

The American role in the Ukrainian crisis is prominent through her corroboration, together with Britain and other NATO member states, of her partnership with Ukraine and through supplying the Ukrainian army with American weapons. The struggle in Ukraine is one of the most prominent aspects of the rift between Russia and the US; this is why President Biden has been attempting, and even demanding from Putin, to place the Ukrainian file on the negotiating table of the Russo-American relationship to review it on a larger scale within the framework of “strategic stability.”

It is common knowledge that the American standpoint vis-à-vis the Russo-Ukrainian crisis is shrouded with malice and deception. At a time when America was averse to the mobilisation of Russian troops on the Ukrainian borders, and was threatening Russia with harsh economic sanctions if she took the step of defying international willpower, she however failed to move in an effective manner to protect Ukraine against potential invasion; she rather worked towards evacuating her diplomats and expatriates from Ukraine in a move interpreted as an abandoning of Ukraine to let her face her fate by herself America contented herself with backing her militarily and devising a host of red lines in respect of the invasion in a move designed to deepen European awareness of the Russian threat and emphasise her role in protecting Europe, and the need of the Europeans for NATO. This is why America and NATO raised the levels of preparedness among their armed forces and deployed NATO forces along the borders with Belarus. She also despatched American FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and handed the Ukrainian navy two US coast guard boats, while Britain started building two naval bases for Ukraine. Nevertheless, dispatching US troops to confront Russia is a farfetched option; America has compensated for this by dispatching troops to the states of the eastern wing of NATO to corroborate its role in the security of Europe and deepen eastern European dependence on America.

As for the European standpoint, it is tilting between calling for a diplomatic solution, threatening to impose sanctions and warning against an invasion and its consequences; in other situations, the relationship between Russia and EU member states is dominated by a tit for tat expulsion of diplomats, as was the case between Germany and Russia following the assassination of a Chechen opponent. France and Germany for their part are striving to reduce the tension lest the crisis should impact negatively on their interests, and at the same time, they are jostling to lead a Europe divided in her standpoints towards the relationship with Russia.

In light of European statements, the European states may reduce their strategic dependence on Russian gas to please America, and resort to imposing sanctions in case Russia invades Ukraine, even though they would prefer the diplomatic solution to the confrontation to ensure Ukraine’s unity. Hence, the EU offered its services throughout the crisis in its quality as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine. Germany and France have led several attempts at mediation and at monitoring a ceasefire; in 2014, what became known as the Normandy Quartet was formed comprising of Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine. The EU is also expected to partake in imposing stern sanctions against Russia should she attack Ukraine. Such measures may include shutting Russia out of the SWIFT system and delaying the operating of the Russian gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 in Germany; this is what America has been seeking so that she may impinge on the Russo-German entente, and this notion was corroborated by US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, who told reporters on 27 January during a briefing "If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward."

As for what is expected to happen in the next phase, Russian leaders may come to the conclusion that using force today could be less costly than using it tomorrow if Ukraine were to become a NATO member state. Hence, the choices of Russia’s top brass are limited in respect of preserving Russian interests, even though the use of force will not be easy. Putin may resort to flex his muscles within a limited scope should the political course of action lead to a stalemate and should Russia fail to achieve the desired settlement, and he may be compelled to invade eastern Ukraine to use this manoeuvre as a bargaining chip during the negotiations and impose a settlement that would halt Ukraine’s move to the Western camp. On the other hand, America is attempting to lure Russia into a military action and aggravate the situation in a manner which would carry a message to Russia stipulating that speeding up the invasion would be better than delaying it, so that she may dissipate the Europeans’ trust in Putin and deepen the nationalistic tendency which is hostile to Russia in Ukraine and in the entire Russian lebensraum.

Putin for his part would be aspiring to shore up Russia’s political, military and economic position through this crisis, especially after he had succeeded in Syria and Georgia, orchestrating the Armenian-Azerbaijani crisis and restoring security in Kazakhstan. Hence, Putin would endeavour to regulate the balance afresh through the use of force should he fail to achieve a satisfactory settlement with Ukraine and the US. This may compel Russia to disentangle herself from this booby-trapped process by resorting to military force in order to readjust the Ukrainian orientations and attempt to lift the West’s sanctions, knowing that Russia had resorted to force in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and has to a great extent hampered US plans in those countries. Hence, if Russia were to wage war on Ukraine, it would be hard for her to end it and she may not achieve lasting peace since the war could develop into a long-term confrontation, especially if what is known geographically as Western Ukraine remained through Western supplies. In other words, the war could turn into a war of attrition if Ukraine were supplied with sophisticated Western weapons and equipment. Russia could also facereal diplomatic isolation, especially if the war erupted and turned into an open and major confrontation between the forces of the two countries, namely Russia and Ukraine, whereby the former would be viewed as the aggressor. Hence, Russia would prefer to maintain the status quo, which would be a less damaging option than military confrontation, provided nothing compelling her to undertake a limited military action crops up. The status quo is in Russia’s favour, especially if the independence of Donbas were recognised, even though this would nurture the state of uncertainty in her relationship with Europe.

Hence, US policy towards Russia remains fixed, namely besieging the latter within her lebensraum, turning her into a major regional power, and sealing off her relationship with China, Germany and France, lest the international situation should be destabilised.

Although the presence of a strong Russia adjacent to Europe constitutes an American interest, her strength however should not exceed the extent required to keep the equilibrium with Europe and maintain the latter under the umbrella of American protection with Europe footing the bill of such protection.

The current crisis between Russia and Ukraine is in fact a crisis between Russia and America who aims at besieging Russia within her lebensraum and downsizing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy, as well as dissuading the European states from considering France’s calls for establishing a European force independent of NATO, and turning NATO into an international organisation to uphold international peace and security.

As Russia strives to defend her lebensraum, America is attempting to place Europe on a collision course with Russia and humiliate France so that she may ditch her notion of establishing an independent European force. By observing the current Russo-Ukrainian crisis, it has transpired that Russia is adamant to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which if it materialised, would place Russia within minutes of its missiles, a scenario that Russia would never accept. This is why Putin demanded from NATO, especially America, written guarantees before withdrawing his forces from Ukraine’s borders.

The current crisis has turned into a muscle-flexing exercise by Russia and an intimidation of Europe; and this is what America wants to achieve her aims. And although the Minsk Protocol has given Ukraine the right to regain full control of the country’s borders in all the region of conflict, it has however remained mere ink on paper; consequently, those provinces remained rebellious towards the central government. Nevertheless, Russia continues to contemplate the secession of those provinces and considers them independent of Ukraine, especially now that the Duma voted last to recognise the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, and the independence of Donbas from Ukraine. If Russia were to succeed in exacting an international endorsement of such a step, this would herald the division of Ukraine, and this is what Russia covets and Europe dreads.

17 Rajab 1443h
18 February 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Erdoğan’s UAE Visit & Relationship with "Israel" 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Erdoğan’s UAE Visit & Relationship with "Israel"

The visit of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to the Emirates on 14-15 February came in response to the visit staged by Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and the de facto UAE ruler Mohammed bin Zayed to Turkey on 24 November 2021. The visit came as a reaction to the changes pertinent to the relationship with Iran and the Gulf States pursued by America under the tenure of the Democrats. During the visit, Turkey and the UAE signed 12 joint agreements in various fields the most important of which was an agreement on the defence industry which America aims to integrate with host of foreign partners such as Ukraine and the UAE to prevent Turkey from being independent in this field.

It seems the Emirates’ rulers have realised that they had to follow in the footsteps of Egypt and Saudi who had expressed a desire to have closer relations with Turkey, and to resume the race with Qatar in serving America and stimulate her presence in the region following the remarkable role Qatar played in Afghanistan and the recent partnership concluded between Qatar and NATO.

Hence, following a lingering tussle between Turkey and the Emirates, which had backed all of Turkey’s opponents, President Erdoğan received a warm welcome during his visit which was described as historic. This came in the context of luring Turkey and harnessing her in securing the strategic equilibrium in the Middle East and Gulf security following the policy of downsizing Iran and energizing the process of the regional solution, and in the context of containing the Turkish leadership which has so far withstood all the efforts aimed at bringing it back in to the stable of affiliated states.

It is no secret that the transformation of the radically hostile standpoint of the Emirates towards Turkey and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and towards all that which is attributed to Islam, does not deviate from the instructions of the US and the exigencies of the changes that followed America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as the forthcoming challenges with China and Russia. Although this rapprochement represented a carrot for Erdoğan, who does not object to the intersection of his interests with those of America and her agents as per the principle of expediency and pragmatism, the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement, however, at a time when the Turkish economy is deteriorating and Erdoğan is drawing nearer to the elections’ season with the urgent need to improve the economic indicators, muzzle the domestic resentment and thwart the foreign interventions, in addition to his U-turn in the relationship with Saudi and Egypt, and America’s decision to shore up his standpoint in the Eastern Mediterranean at the expense of Greece and France, all this falls under a host of American demands pertinent to Erdoğan’s understandings with Russia, who has been subjected to a NATO campaign in the Ukrainian scene to weaken her relationship with Germany and perturb her relationship with France and China. It also falls under the requirements to tackle Erdoğan’s persistent impact on America’s policies towards the Turkish domestic file and his harassment of her agents, the Syrian file and the Kurds, the relationship with "Israel", and to provide a cover for the states that have normalised their relations with the Zionist entity and concluded an alliance with it which explains the recent inducement of the file pertinent to the relationship between Turkey and the usurping entity.

Therefore, what is occurring in terms of the openness in Erdoğan’s foreign policy amidst the US economic pressures and the activity of the Turkish opposition, such as the meeting between the UK ambassador and the mayor of Istanbul Ekrem İmamoğlu, and the meeting of the latter with the US ambassador, falls under the attempts to lure Erdoğan and impose a custodianship on his foreign relations, restructure and redesign them according to the American vision without however impinging on Erdoğan’s interests outside the context of affiliation, and in an attempt to bring Turkey back to the stable of obedience following the failed coup to topple Erdoğan in 2016.

In this context, Erdoğan aspires to harness the relationship with the Emirates and the visit of the Zionist entity’s president Isaac Herzog to Turkey in several issues pertinent to domestic policy, the tussle over Eastern Mediterranean oil and in mellowing the relationship with Biden’s administration, which has been fraught with rifts. Erdoğan announced this visit as early as 27 January 2022 through a host of statements aired by Anadolu Agency as he commented on the nature of the relationship between Turkey and "Israel"; he said “a new phase in the relations between Turkey and "Israel" will begin with the visit of the "Israeli" president.”

It seems that America’s agents have either absorbed these changes themselves or received their orders from the White House; and subsequently, they set about improving their relationship with Qatar and then moved towards Turkey, towards whom they had been hostile, to turn with her a new leaf as they realised that she wielded influence in several files of the region, especially Syria, Iraq, Libya and East Africa.

Erdoğan would not have announced the visit of Herzog had he not concluded a host of secret and unannounced understandings with America pertaining to sharing the Eastern Mediterranean’s oil. "Israeli" newspaper Jerusalem Post reported that the Biden administration informed "Israel", Cyprus and Greece in the past few weeks that it no longer supported the "Israeli" gas pipeline to Europe. For his part, Erdoğan commented on this American announcement by saying “this project was unfeasible; they had done all the financial calculations and concluded that there was nothing positive in this project.” He added that such projects could not be successful without the help of Turkey. He explicitly reiterated this aim during a statement aired by Anadolu Agency on 27 January 2022 as he announced Herzog’s visit by saying “we did in the past hold a few meetings with "Israeli" stakeholders and confirmed the mutual cooperation to export gas to Europe; and Turkey is still ready for joint action.”

Meanwhile, the president of TUSIAD, Simone Kaslowski, met with several opposition leaders and his association issued a communiqué calling on Erdoğan to retract from lowering the interest rate and to hold early elections. This prompted Erdoğan to issue a direct warning to the president of the TUSIAD association, urging him to refrain from meddling in the way the political affairs of the country are run and to focus his efforts on trade and industry; he reminded him that “Turkey today is not the same as that of the past,” in reference to the infiltration of TUSIAD in the state’s financial institutions.

Hence, the rapprochement of Erdoğan and his group with the Emirates and "Israel" are designed to extinguish the blazing foreign front in order to generate the necessary provisions to win the elections in 2023, by weakening the domestic and foreign support given to the Turkish opposition, especially as Erdoğan has often announced that Turkey has been facing an economic war since the failed coup of July 2016.

16 Rajab 1443h
17 February 2022

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Kais Saied Pursues his Authoritarian Measures 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Kais Saied Pursues his Authoritarian Measures

President of the Tunisian republic Kais Saied announced few days ago that the Supreme Judicial Council was a thing of the past. This decision, which he announced from the headquarters of the interior ministry, was seconded by a host of measures such as closing down the Council’s building, placing security forces at its entrance and preventing its members from entering. Although such undertaking among others was expected by observers of the Tunisian political scene, its impact however was severe on domestic opponents of his constitutional coup, especially members of the Assembly of the People's Representatives who have been subjected to his arbitrary measures since 25 July 2021 and who have been hoping to widen the scope of opponents to the president via some activities and events such as establishing the “Citizens Against the Coup” front and staging street protests. In the protest, in Mohammed V Boulevard on 13 February, one of the deputies of the al-Karama coalition announced that those who supported the president in his coup from among security personnel, military officers or guards would be called to account, irrespective of whether parliament resumed its functions or not. Such scenario suggests that the US has been exerting pressure on President Kais Saied and intimidating the Francophone forces who are still dwelling in the pockets of the security and military institutions in North Africa. It also reflects a host of regional and international pledges to the Tunisian opposition forces to reinforce their containment of the mainstream public opinion amidst the endeavours to reproduce the political scene and marginalise the option of the” Islamists” and their role in it. President Kais Saied continues to execute such measures to which the US and her agents in Egypt, Algeria and the Emirates are not objecting. Other indications reflecting this scenario have come in the shape of an imminent visit to Tunisia by a European Parliament delegation to meet the speaker of the parliament whose competencies have been suspended for about seven months; such a move is politically viewed as direct support for the president’s opponents. Moreover, several reports have been published by some newspapers and research centres inciting the US administration and warning against the excessive measures of the Tunisian President such as the report compiled by the Washington Post’s Editor-in-Chief in which he said America should not remain idle towards what was occurring in Tunisia. He also mentioned that Joe Biden had pledged to support democracy in Tunisia when he was Obama’s vice-president and met former President Caid Essebsi and concluded with him several agreements such as considering Tunisia as a non-NATO partner.

President Kais Saied for his part is attempting to muster domestic support and appease the anxieties of the US regarding the infiltration of the Francophone forces within the presidential office by fulfilling the demands of some of his entourage who are at odds with each other, such as the tiff between the interior minister and his family with Kais Saied’s chief of staff Nadia Akasha, which ended in her dismissal according to the official communiqué, or her resignation as per her announcement on social media before leaving the country for France. Kais Saied is also attempting to strengthen his standpoints through some of his supporters in the judiciary and official circles, and the abolishment of the Judicial Council was carried out in this context. As for his foreign relations, he met with the French treasury chief following an unannounced visit to France, according to public sources, while Tunisia’s interior minister met the French ambassador and signed an agreement to restore the Franco-Tunisian security committee. This came after Kais Saied had launched a scathing attack on the G7 foreign ministers in response to their apprehensions vis-à-vis his decision to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council. All these moves were designed to alleviate France’s security concerns, which constitute her major nightmare in North Africa, following her successive losses in Libya and Chad, as well as her decision to withdraw from Mali recently.

We deduce from the aforementioned that the sole foreign backer of President Kais Saied is France, despite America’s decision to contain him and direct him through her agents in Egypt and the UAE in order to control his movements and implicate him from time to time. However, each time he carries out a new undertaking, he widens the circle of his opponents and generates the conditions, especially in the midst of the economic crisis, astronomical price increase, lack of basic commodities and the dwindling of his popularity among the masses, for the imposing of fresh foreign dictates ahead of the negotiations with the IMF, whose provisions have always been harsh; this will compel him to carry out a host of painful reforms which will eventually pave the way for discarding him once he has been exhausted in serving the colonialists’ designs.

We have time and time again warned of the collaborating political milieu in the Muslims’ lands in our political observations on the situation in Tunisia, which, more than ten centuries ago, represented the platform of conquests towards Spain, Italy and East and Central Africa, and which deserves, together with her men, a political milieu emanating from the willpower of the masses that expresses the Aqeedah of this Ummah. It will also be befitting for such a milieu to abolish the current feuding political milieu which has been jostling to serve the Kafir West and enable it to plunder the riches of the land and disfigure the psyche of the servants with its corrupt materialistic culture, which is set to corrupt our children and future generations. Our Lord the Almighty has forbidden us from following all what those profligates are calling us for in terms of debauchery and decadence, referring our affairs to the rules of kufr and Taghut, and being loyal to the Kuffar. Allah the Almighty has commanded us to obey him, individuals and groups alike, and He has promised us the bliss of the two lives, provided we adhere to the righteous and straight path and we hold on to His Book and the Sunnah of His noble Messenger who was sent as a mercy to humankind.

“So let those who would go against His bidding beware, lest a trial befall them, or grievous suffering befall them.” [an-Nour-63]

15 Rajab 1443h
16 February 2022

hizbuttahrir.org  

Identity Controversy in Jordan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Identity Controversy in Jordan

Political and media tussles reaching the point of hatred and plotting break out from time to time between those who claim to represent the “nationalist movement” within the “foreign opposition” backed by tribal activists, retired military officers and some parliamentary personalities, and a host of political and media personalities attributed to those described as the “Palestinian constituent” together with those who claim to be their supporters from among the liberalists linked to the regime, the US embassy and foreign agendas. The struggle of the “nationalist” faction with the palace and its entourage revolves around corruption, nepotism, monopolising power, structuring the regime and the naturalisation file with the deteriorating economic situation and financial and administrative corruption as their ammunition in the onslaught on the palace with the aim of deterring it from implementing the foreign dictates on the future of the “Palestinian issue” and its fallouts on Jordan, and twist its arm into carrying out “political reforms” and a restructuring leading to reproducing the regime on “nationalist” grounds that would prevent the palace from pursuing its ghoulish comportment towards the state, its faculties and its future, and subsequently, achieving a government with a “general mandate in addition to bulwarking the “east-Jordanian constituent” against the widening of the “political rights” of the “Palestinian constituent”.

As a result, political tussle erupted in the past few days over the notion of “collective national identity” which was recommended by the royal committee to streamline the political system and ratified by the constitutional amendments at the beginning of this month.

In light of this poisonous political atmosphere, it is imperative to corroborate what we have already elucidated concerning this issue and its perspectives and the standpoint that should be undertaken towards it by the vital forces in society. Hence, by revisiting the events instigated by the former US administration through the Deal of the Century and by probing the current events that have been taking place in Jordan since King Abdullah acceded to the throne, and then linking them to their foreign plane, we deduce that the issue of naturalising the “Palestinian refugees” in their place of residence and expanding political representation of those dubbed as the “Palestinian constituent” in Jordan represent the cornerstone in the bid to settle the “Palestinian issue” and entrenching the Zionist occupation and its “right to exist” since perpetuating the existence of so-called “Palestinian refugees” would keep the “Palestinian issue” alive in the conscience of the Muslims and a cause for entrenching “extremism” from a security perspective, turn it into a stain on the solutions of the so-called “Middle East issue”, and maintain it as a “legal impediment” at the plane of international laws and conventions, which tend to selectively decide on the peoples’ right to self-determination. This turns the “Palestinian issue”, which is laden with conspiracies, into a burden on the Arab regimes and an obstacle in the face of integrating the Zionist entity into the region, a scarecrow for "Israeli" security and a threat to the Jewishness of the state. Hence, the policy of the usurping entity is built on the notion of “ending the right of return”, land-grabbing, Judaizing the Palestinian areas and displacing more residents of the occupied lands, especially the residents of al-Quds. In other words, the Zionist entity is attempting to get rid of the Palestinian “demographic surplus” and relocate it to Jordan, and place the settlers in their residential areas while maintaining its sovereignty over the lands and the holy precincts; this is why it continues to build settlements in the West Bank, harass the Palestinians, and confiscate their properties.

It is common knowledge that the “Palestinian issue” is a matter of interest for the international community since it borders Western interests in the Gulf and international transportation routes. It is also common knowledge that "Israel" represents a Western colonialist forward operating base (FOB) in the heart of the Islamic world, and any tension or clash between the Muslims and the “Zionists” would rekindle in the people of the region the notion of liberation and Jihad, threaten the interests of the West and herald the demolition of the entire Western American colonialist project for the Middle East. Hence, Western powers, headed by America, have been attempting to end the remnants of the “Palestinian issue” and integrate the Zionist entity into the region via normalisation, alliance, economic intertwining and the “Abrahamic approach”. They have also been endeavouring to dissolve “the Palestinian identity” through extremely devious styles, including naturalising the Palestinian refugees in their place of residence. This trend cropped up when Egypt forsook her commitment to the League of Arab States in 1965 stipulating refraining from naturalising the Palestinians and only granting them unified travel documents in order to preserve the Palestinian identity. In 2012, the Egyptian authorities accelerated the pace of naturalising the Palestinians; their number reached 50,000 from Gaza alone at the same period when the king of Jordan formed a committee that included former intelligence chief Mohammed al Dahabi, Taher al Masri, and Rajai al Dajani, to naturalise the Palestinians. However, Mohammed al Dahabi, described by the US embassy in one of its briefings as “an impediment in the face of reforms”, according to NGO sources, hampered the forming of the committee. Hence, the recommendations of the royal committee and the constitutional amendments pertinent to parties and elections, which will lead to taming partisan activities, providing an appropriate climate for pragmatic and liberal parties and tightening the siege imposed on proscribed doctrinal parties, and which will also lead to widening the representation of the “Jordanians of Palestinian origin” in parliament and in the “forthcoming parliamentary government” at the expense of the “tribes”, under the guise of “shoring up the collective national identity” and upholding fair representation for all the factions and regions of Jordanian society, such recommendations are insincere since they are tantamount to a response to the Westernisation and secularisation of the societal awareness on the fulfilment of the “regional solution”, abolishing the right of return, liquidating the “Palestinian issue”, and turning Jordan into an alternative homeland and a ”hybrid regime”, irrespective of the fate of the participatory formula with the Palestinian Authority and the notion of the “two-state solution” and its denotation. This is the reason behind the tautness of the “East-Jordan nationalist movement”, its resentment towards the king and his family, and its aversion to “naturalisation” and expanding political representation of the so-called “Palestinian constituent”, and the cause behind the division among the state’s security agencies and the king’s relentless onslaught on the intelligence department with the aim of downsizing its function and undermine its grandeur, as well as his calls for ending the leaking of information to the “foreign opposition”.

In this context, it is imperative to perceive that there is no harm in “naturalising” and resettling the “Palestinians”, treating them equally to their brethren in Jordan in terms of the legitimate rights and duties without relinquishing one single inch of the land of Palestine and the right of return, and it should not be a problematic since citizenship in Islam is the right of being affiliated to the “doctrinal homeland” and of living therein irrespective of the presence or the absence of the Islamic State and her system. Since citizenship is a legal bond rather than a doctrinal bond between an individual in his quality as a human and the state, and since such a bond entails a host of rights and commitments, it is therefore permissible provided it is not built on loyalty to the systems of Kufr. Moreover, since citizenship, i.e., “nationality, in the Islamic lands is the right of every Muslim, irrespective of the implemented system while taking into account the prohibition of being loyal to Dar al-Kufr and its system, or acknowledging the country-levels of the Islamic lands on patriotic or nationalist grounds and what they may entail in terms of modernist outputs, discriminations and violations of the Shari'ah rules, obtaining it and enjoying the legitimate rights it entails is an entitlement that gives the emigrants from Palestine the right to settle in the lands of Islam and enjoy all the rights and duties.

However, if settling the “Palestinian refugees” falls within the political context epitomised in “normalisation, alliance and the Abrahamic approach”, which is a conspiratorial context aiming at abolishing the “right of return”, entrenching the Zionist occupation of Palestine and recognising the right of "Israel" to exist, it should therefore not be resisted by depriving the Palestinians of their rights, but resisted by the people of the two banks to the attempt to liquidate the issue through legitimate methods and means.

Therefore, it is imperative for this perception to be the foundation for the viewpoint towards “naturalisation” and the relationship between the children of the two banks. In other words, as the brothers east of the river object to the “political reforms” and the notion of the devious “collective national identity”, they should take into account the legitimate right of the people of Palestine to be fully integrated in the Muslims’ lands without any discrimination, and their right to be supported based on the exigency of Islamic fraternity and the pledge of the covenant (thimmah) for the non-Muslims from among them. Hence, it is imperative to rescind and eschew the peripheral identities and the “collective national identity” in favour of the doctrinal identity in which there exists no difference between Arab and non-Arab save in piety while taking into account the pledge of the covenant to the non-Muslims, especially as the people of Jordan, when they gave refuge and supported Palestine and her people against the crusades, British colonialism and Zionist occupation, they did so on the grounds of Islamic fraternity and because the issue was their own just like the people of Palestine. They ought to remember that the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased wit them) did not conquer Jordan to uphold patriotism but for the word of Allah the Almighty to reign supreme; the children of Palestine in Jordan should for their part snub their collaborating leaders, reject the liquidating of their issue and the relinquishing of their lands and their right of return. By this token, objecting to settling the “Palestinians”, depriving them of some of their rights, or describing them as refugees, or discriminating against them on “patriotic” grounds, or under the guise of preserving the “Palestinian identity” is abhorred by Shari'ah. The duty is to be fair to them on the grounds of religious fraternity and the covenant, close ranks with them in confronting the regime and the US-Zionist project targeting the entire Ummah indiscriminately. It is also imperative to realise that Jordan and its people are all militarily, culturally and economically colonised, and they themselves are in need of a liberation warranting a struggle with the American foreign colonialist backing the regime to sever the support it gives to its collaborators, by exposing, isolating and banishing them. Moreover, we ought to realise that the king himself does not have any authority over Jordan; he is merely executing the domestic and regional tasks assigned to him by the US in exchange for his continuance in power together with his family, knowing that he inherited the throne from his father on the recommendation of US National Security Advisor Sandy Berger who instructed king Hussein in his last days to remove his brother crown prince Hassan, a move exposed by the French press at the time.

Moreover, it is imperative to realise that the Jordanian political milieu, with its various tendencies, is by and large corrupt and an extension of the herd of collaborators and scroungers who have mastered the rules of the American political game in the regions and have been vying to execute it. It would be woolgathering to envisage a “parliamentary government” with a general mandate within a state shackled with political, military and economic agreements, a corrupt and hired political milieu and a powerless people. Hence, the path towards regaining the authority and “sovereignty” would not be through “political reform” for the same fabric, or on patriotic grounds of the Jahiliya era: “Do they, perchance, desire the law of pagan ignorance. But for people who have inner certainty, who could be a better law-giver than Allah” [al-Maidah-50]; the solution ought to be taken from the reservoir of the noble Shari'ah and its method in tackling corrupt regimes, namely the radical change that uproots the regimes of affiliation, Kufr and Taghut, and establishes the Shari'ah of Allah and righteous governance.

“Hence, judge between them in accordance with what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their errant views; and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from what Allah has revealed to you.” [al-Maidah-49]

13 Jumada al-Akhirah 1443h
16 January 2022

hizbuttahrir.org 

Political Observation - Kazakhstan Unrest 

Conspiracy to Uproot Islam from Land of Haramayn 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Comment - The Conspiracy to Uproot Islam from the Land of the Haramayn

“Indeed, those who contend against Allah and His Messenger - it is they who shall find themselves among the most abject.” [al-Mujadilah-20]

In conjunction with the events of Riyadh Season 2021 consisting of over 7000 events including 70 Arab and six international concerts, in addition to 10 international exhibitions and 350 theatre shows, and in conjunction with the first edition of the Red Sea International Film Festival (RSIFF) in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, attended by a sizable number of world film “stars” from various European countries and Hollywood, among them gays, feminists and gay rights activists according to Middle East Eye (MEE), thus reflecting a debauchery aiming at promoting liberalism and freedom of speech, the first three-day Riyadh Philosophy Conference organised by the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission at King Fahad Library in Riyadh, was launched on Wednesday 8 December. The conference gathered an “elite” of intellectuals and personalities involved in thought and philosophy from Saudi and other parts of the world. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Literature, Publishing and Translation Commission, Dr Mohammed Hasan Alwan, said in the opening speech of the conference that “Saudi is one of the countries of the world that is changing most, and no country could match it in terms of dynamism for revival, an issue which will have various philosophical, intellectual and cultural overtones.”

Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman put forward in 2016 a reform plan under the theme of “Vision 2030” based on investment in the entertainment sector among others. He also announced in October 2018 that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be completely different in the next five years.” He also said, “if we succeed in the next five years, the countries of the region will join us” adding “this is the war of the Saudis and this is my war, which I am personally waging.”

Effectively, in the past five years, he has killed off the traditional religious image of Saudi; and Jordan joined him through the Netflix films which were designed to corrupt young girls and boys, and through the concerts which were officially immunised against the coronavirus to the exclusion of other social events. Saudi was also joined by Tunisia through waging a war on the Shari'ah rules and spreading poisonous films such as Black Medusa and what it entails in terms of debauchery and destructive feminist concepts.

As for the philosophy conference in Saudi, it is the most dangerous on the awareness of Muslim youth as it includes a host of “workshops addressing contemporary issues” and sheds light on the “role of philosophy in understanding the world today.” The conference includes various activities designed to “embed the value of philosophical thought among young generations and incentivise their interest in it,” according to what has been stated. The West’s aim from recommending the inclusion of philosophy in the educational curricula is to poison, and even destroy, the Islamic personality and reconfigure the awareness among the youth and shape their thought according to what philosophy, its cognitive resources and its outputs that contradict religion involve such as making reason the judge of good and bad instead of the Shari'ah texts, weakening Muslims’ link to religion and its authority while injecting them with the constructs of Western culture such as the methods of scientific research in humanities rather than the natural and experimental sciences. All this is to be effectuated through the gates of “openness to the world today” and perceiving it with its contemporary tools such the philosophy of “enlightenment” which stipulates that reason can do away with religion thanks to science, as well as marketing all this to Muslim youth in its quality as proud achievements, thus encouraging them to adopt the secularist and liberal democratic values and concepts which are built on Relativity of Truth, man’s centrality and denying the authority of revelation to eventually imposing a cognitive boycott on Islam, its values and its history, accepting the corrupt reality, submitting to the colonialists and their imported thought and acquiescing to the collaborating rulers and client regimes. They have exploited the Open Skies Policy to generate interaction between cultures while coating their corrupting of the Ummah with “reform and renewal” with the help of the herds of “cultural elites” who assumed the attribute of “enlightenment” to deal Islam a blow, distort it and cast doubt on its constants.

Dear Muslims,

Your children should be wary of what is concocted against them by arming themselves with intellectual and political awareness, mobilising themselves for the vital issue and the ferocious war against their religion, and repel the intellectual and military onslaught of the Kuffar which is threatening to destroy the Ummah and the future of her children with the collusion of her collaborating rulers. Mohammed bin Salman admitted during an interview with the Washington Post in 2018 to have harnessed religion and mobilised Wahabism at the behest of the West for the sake of foreign agendas and declaring war on Islam in the cradle of the Islamic religion. He has set about executing what he had pledged to his masters in the White House as he deems the war on Islam and its conveyors his personal crusade; and he is about to uproot what is left in terms of religious monuments and rites in the land of the Haramayn so that he may be joined by the rest of the Islamic lands, as he promised, and follow in the footsteps of his partner, the Satan of the Arabs, Mohammed bin Zayed, who has turned the Emirates into a house of prostitution, debauchery and intoxicants, and who used, with the help of bin Salman and the rulers of the Gulf, the riches of the Muslims to fight Islam and buy the loyalty of the leaders, politicians, academics, media professionals, “scholars” and “sheikhs” whose disregard for religion has led some of them to propagate the profligate events of Riyadh Season 21. This is what former Imam of the Holy Mosque Adel al-Kalbani did, exactly like what “sheikh” Abdul Fattah Moro did in Tunisia. Wallowing in the obscenities of the rulers has even led the Imam of al-Haram al-Makki, sheikh Sudais to sing the praises of the enemy of Islam and the Muslims, Donald Trump, and the treachery of other “sheikhs” who have not only entered the hole of the lizard but even relished dwelling in there, led them to make the blood of the Muslims violable in the Gulf War, side with the rulers against the masses, make their obedience an obligation, justify the carnages perpetrated against the Muslims in the “Arab revolutions”, legitimise treason, peace and alliance with the usurping Zionist entity, and recognise its “right” to exist. Those profligate and depraved rulers harnessed the riches of the Muslims to recruit spies, support the collaborators and criminals, destroy the Muslims’ lands in the “Arab Spring” and establish the projects of normalisation with the Zionist entity. They however deprived the oppressed Muslims in Gaza, Kashmir, Burma and the displaced women and children living in refugee camps of those riches, knowing that the plight of those oppressed Muslims is but the construct of the guided, criminal and reckless policies of those rulers who blessed the oppression of the Uyghur Muslims in China and concocted an “Abrahamic” religion to efface the boundaries between Islam and Kufr and integrate the Zionist entity in the region. They also spent the funds of the Muslims generously, wastefully and profligately on their luxuries and entourage and on the disseminators of Westernisation and libellers of the Islamic religion, as well as the propagators of debauchery, decadence, sordidness, whoredom and profligacy from among male and female “artists” whom they turned into icons and role models. All this has been occurring within a frenzied campaign against Islam, its constants, and its foundations, especially the Prophetic Sunnah which epitomises the Islamic way of life in its political aspects and moral splendour.

Dear Muslims,

The calamity of the Ummah in her religion due to the doctrinal desertification and the bulldozing of its values is tremendous, and her material losses, pillaged for her enemies and their poodles in Muslims’ lands are immeasurable. Sincere scholars, parties and influential figures should spread awareness about Islam, its sanctities, and the duty of Muslims towards it. They should infuse in the Ummah the spirit of struggle and standing up to the Kuffar Westerners whose confrontation can never be through importing their way of life, consuming their culture, concluding alliances with them and mortgaging the country to their interests.

The “scholars” and “sheikhs” ought to emulate their predecessors, the beacons who made sacrifices, and refrain from betraying Islam and letting it down under the pretext of eating carrion meat being permissible out of necessity, return to the rulers their merchandise such as carrion, swine flesh and the crumbs of their tables instead of making of them a feast, enjoying eating them and calling those not driven by necessity to join in; if they serious about supporting their religion and their Ummah, they should get involved in commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil and adopt this action as a muzzle to deter the traitorous rulers and regimes from conspiring and perpetrating falsehood. They should arm themselves with the succour of their Lord Who says, “If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you.” [Mohammed-7], derive their inspiration from the bravery and stance of the classical scholars and rely on their popular support credentials. They are capable of overcoming the state of horror from the rulers by truly relying on Allah the Almighty, believing in His Qadaa and His Qadar and realising that the oppressive rulers suffer pain even as we suffer it and that we are hoping from Allah what they cannot hope for, and that the forces of the Ummah and the influential sections therein are capable of surpassing the roles Imposed by the systems of corrupt governance and the collaborating rulers. The sincere scholars are even capable on their own to awaken the resolves of the oblivious to the plots, deceptions , betrayals and conspiracies of the rulers, and capable, with the help of Allah the Almighty, to lead the Ummah, seize the initiative, topple the Kufr regimes, establish the religion of Allah and resume the Islamic way of life if they reenergised their drive and mustered the forces for it; they would only need to take the root causes into account, have iman in the rules of Allah the Almighty and His support, and rely on Him. This is what is becoming of the “scholar” who would be ashamed of Allah his Lord finding him where He prohibited him, or not finding him where He commanded him.

“Those who convey Allah’s messages, and stand in awe of Him, and hold none but Allah in awe: for none can take count as Allah does.” [al-Ahzab-39]

11 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
15 December 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Beyond Biden’s Democracy Summit 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Beyond Biden’s Democracy Summit

On Thursday and Friday, 9-10 December US President Joe Biden hosted by video link a “Summit for Democracy”, which gathered representatives of about 100 countries, NGOs, corporations, and charity organisations. According to France24, the list of invitees caused a great deal of tension as China and Russia, deemed by Biden as the two most notorious “authoritative states”, denounced their exclusion from the Summit and deemed it “an unjustified return to the cold war mentality and to dividing the world.” Beijing was infuriated by the invitation to the Summit extended to Taiwan which she deems a Chinese province.

The Summit aims to “strengthen democracy and advance respect for human rights”, as per President Biden’s electoral pledge.

It is no secret that China and Russia are politically targeted in the dividing of the world into two camps, one of which is “liberal democratic”, and the other is “totalistic authoritarian”. The targeting is due to geoeconomic considerations in the case of China and geostrategic considerations in the case of Russia, in addition to targeting the Islamic Ummah within this dividing for ideological and doctrinal considerations within the context of the preventive war.

By reading the Democratic Party’s manifesto of the 2020 elections, we construe that one of its priorities is tackling “the standpoint of the US in the world”, and this will be through corroborating the notion of the “West” as a collective of democratic states sharing the same concepts and values, rather than mere historical alliances, such as NATO, or ASEAN, and through establishing the “Community of Democracies”, which is built around the notion of democracy itself.

In this context, the US Secretary of State told the Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing that he would rely on shedding light on those countries that did not conform to the American values as one of the tools of the US foreign policy of Joe Biden’s administration. The Democratic Party calls for restructuring the alliances and partnerships to meet potential challenges through the American values and adopting them as a means to “strengthening America’s security and prosperity”. The Democratic Party realises that the war of “models” America has adopted as the criterion for the Western relationship with China and Russia, and the pretext to intervene in the Muslims’ lands, is the plane of a war of values and concepts with the civilisational alternative to the comprehensive Western community instituted by America. An example of such an approach is reflected in exhorting the masses of the Middle East to call for freedom and democracy in the “Arab Spring”, unleashing the oppressive rulers on them, and making them pay a heavy price for choosing the “Islamists” and rallying around the slogans of the “Islamic State and Jihad”, with the aim of deepening their need for freedom and democracy, and compelling them to reconcile with secularism and Western values.

Owing to the indicators of the Summit and what preceded them in terms of changes inside America, its aims become very clear since Biden’s electoral pledge to gather the leaders of the world to a summit to confront dictatorship across the world corroborates the purpose of this Summit, namely to mobilise US public opinion around him and around the Democratic Party, amass support for his policies, and boost the chances of the Democratic Party in the next elections, now that President Biden and his administration have become the choice of the deep state to execute its domestic and foreign policies at this stage. This is especially after Trump and the Republican Party had been demonised in the Capitol events, in addition to corroborating the leadership of the US over the “free” capitalist world by leaning on the scarecrow of “Islamic terrorism” and the Chinese and Russian models of governance and welfare.

It is in this context that reproducing democracy, in its quality as an ideological receptacle to conduct international relations in a selective manner, falls, as well as within the framework of the war of models, the geostrategic jostling with Russia, and the geoeconomic tussle with China, both of which, along with “Islamophobia”, provide a host of tributaries which alienate people from the ruling models and lifestyles. This would culminate in making those alienating models share with the ghoulish capitalist liberal model its corruption, provide it with a fig leaf, keep it company in its loneliness, oppression, and gloominess, renew the pledge of allegiance of those resentful of its ghoulish behaviour and mute their moans and groans. This is corroborated by the conviction of President Biden stipulating that the optimum method to market democracy and rally the world behind the US is by demonstrating that democratic societies could eclipse the dictatorial alternative, and ultimately, arrive at leading the European states which he has invited to unite and work with him to confront the international challenges and what the US describes as the forces of the dictatorial camp led by Russia and China, in addition to confronting what they call “Islamic terrorism.”

One of the other aims of the Summit, which was manifested in the participation of “human rights lobbies” and the organisations seeking to exploit the Summit as a means for fundraising to spend on their dubious projects, is to bolster the role of civil society institutions in executing the agendas of the US, exactly as they did in the colour revolutions of east Europe and in the “Arab Spring”.

Hence, the Summit will provide international cover for the activities of “transnational democracy” and human rights organisations, and US-sponsored civil society institutions involved in espionage and active in most of the countries of the world, and will enable them to execute the agendas of US intelligence, exactly as they did with 6 April Movement in Egypt during the “Arab Spring”.

Therefore, this Summit, which the Biden administration has pledged to organise each year, falls within the context of preserving American hegemony, and within the framework of diplomatic ammunition, political instrumentalism, and value-based camouflage; but at the same time it expresses a civilisational drought. This is because liberal democracy has been damaged in its Western urban areas in which populist and racist inclinations have ballooned and brought rightwing parties to power in recent years. This was vividly reflected on 6 January when thousands of rightwing populists from among the supporters of former President Donald Trump attacked the Capitol building to disrupt the ratification of the US elections results, the killing of George Floyd as well as the campaigns of rightwing leaders in Austria, Czechia, Poland, and Hungary, together with French President Macron, against immigrants, Islam, and the Muslims in their countries. It was also illustrated by the support given by those democratic countries, headed by the US, to the most vicious oppressive pharaohs in the world, such as Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, Mohammed bin Salman, and the rest of the oppressors, who would not have dared to oppress and stand up to their masses, and yet remain in power, had it not been for the American protection and European support.

Perhaps what places this Summit in the category of political instrumentalism is the US decision to integrate it within the context of economic duelling and geostrategic tussle with China and Russia over the international arena, which makes the value-based character of the Summit marginal in comparison with its returns on the plane of the war on the Chinese firm Huawei and the Euro-Russian Nord Stream2, and the circumventing of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with the aim of suffocating China within the alleyways of her initiative if it were not expedient to US companies. Moreover, the Summit has been harnessed as a leveraging tool by using political isolation against some regimes through the selective choosing of the invited countries; the US invited Pakistan, the Philippines, and Brazil, whose President is the far-right extremist Jair Bolsonaro, whereas she snubbed Turkey, who is more democratic than those invited countries.

Nevertheless, the West’s endeavour to recycle democracy and harness it for expedient aims in international relations reflects the bankruptcy of the Western civilisation, its values, and the frailty and instability of the world order. This should pave the way for nations and peoples to acknowledge the system of Islam and deepen the need for it and the adherence to it. It is the same situation that peoples experienced before the Islamic conquests and allowed the Muslims to carry out their conquests to salvage people from worshipping servants to worshipping the Lord of all servants and enabled them to lead the world singlehandedly for over 13 centuries.

8 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
12 December 2021

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Russo-Ukrainian Crisis 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Russo-Ukrainian Crisis

The US plan for Ukraine is summed up in pulling the latter out of the Russian sphere of influence and generating a hotbed of security tension to worry Russia and send shivers down Europe’s spine simultaneously. America succeeded through the “colour revolutions” to snatch Ukraine from the hands of the Russians and lure Russia into annexing Crimea and backing the eastern Ukraine separatists. This generated a state of uncertainty in eastern Europe and terrified the Baltic States. It also achieved progress in the policy of expanding eastwards, penetrating the areas of Russian influence, besieging Russia with a ring of democracies affiliated to the West, and goading Russia into taking military steps which nurtured the state of uncertainty between her and Europe while maintaining her as a scarecrow of European security and a national nightmare compelling the European states to throw themselves into America’s embrace and bulwark themselves with her security system, namely NATO.

By reading the previous military escalation in the spring of 2021 with the mobilisation of 130,000 soldiers on the Ukrainian border, then their withdrawal only to be remobilised again, in addition to Russian fortifications in Crimea and naval drills, we construe these as a Russian message to America, NATO and the EU that Ukraine’s NATO membership entails a hefty price. Hence, Putin was adamant in seeking legal and written guarantees that NATO would not deploy offensive systems in the countries neighbouring Russia and would not expand eastwards. Meanwhile, NATO continues to press ahead for a foothold in Ukraine with the alliance Secretary General stating that “Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control their neighbours.”

Although the event revolves around Ukraine, it however involves a catalogue of imperative political issues for Russian national security, European security and energy independence, France’s attempt to make Europe’s security independent and her manoeuvring to hold a Russo-European summit and establish a more neutral axis on Euro-Russo-Chinese relations, in addition to Turkey’s role, military relationship and her NATO membership and its impact on relations with Russia.

In fact, Russia’s source of concern lies in Ukraine and Belarus, the only two countries outside the Western political and security system and directly bordering Russia, because they would constitute a major and direct threat to Russia’s national security should they join the Western camp. According to Putin, Ukraine is a “red line” as far as Russia is concerned. He elaborated that “if some sophisticated military structures were to crop up in Ukrainian lands, this would mean that their offloads could reach Moscow between 7 to 10 minutes.”

This Russian escalation is tantamount to a direct message to the Europeans warning them against being exploited and lured into a dispute and an arms race which would benefit America and her partners. Russia realises that the US, who compelled her to annex Crimea in order to preserve her presence in the Black Sea after losing her influence in Ukraine in 2014, could induce her anew to annex east Ukraine for security, economic and demographic reasons. This would deepen the state of uncertainty between Russia and the Europeans, highlight the importance of NATO to Europe and heighten her dependence on America. Therefore, Ukraine has restored the European nightmare, fear and wariness of Russia and Putin in person, whom she turned into an enemy threatening Europe’s security and economic interests and who cannot be trusted. In this context, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said during a visit to Rome that he would “call on Chancellor Scholz not to give in to pressure from Russia and not to allow Nord Stream 2 to be used as an instrument for blackmail against Ukraine.” Several statements were also made by Baltic States’ foreign ministers spokespersons expressing Europe’s “need to exhibit a clear policy line on energy.”

It is worth mentioning in this context that Russia and China do not dispute America’s supremacy over the world, but they jostle with her over her supremacy over them. The American aim behind these disputes and the campaigns of inciting NATO member states and the EU against China and Russia is to lure them into rallying behind her and adopting her international agenda. Britain, Germany, and the Baltic States responded, proceeded behind America, and called for expelling Russia from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), arming Ukraine, shutting down Nord Stream 2 and doubling the financial sanctions on Russia.

Following the meeting between Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in September 2021, the US and Ukraine signed the “U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership” which paves the way for Ukraine to join the European political and security community by confirming that “the strategic partnership existing between our two nations is critical for the security of Ukraine and Europe as a whole.” That partnership also corroborated the perpetuation of the state of uncertainty through America’s emphasis on her “unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including Crimea and extending to its territorial waters in the face of ongoing Russian aggression, which threatens regional peace and stability and undermines the global rules-based order,” and through the 12 clauses of Section II of the Charter titled “Security and Countering Russian Aggression.”

Hence, the denotations and signs of the escalation do not indicate that Russia is about to start a war. It is rather a provocation which, should Ukraine join NATO, will lead to a host of limited Russian military steps in east Ukraine which could cost Putin a hefty financial and psychological price and damage his domestic and regional agenda. Whether the escalation is eased or progressed into a limited military action, it would in both cases achieve America’s aims to perpetuate the Russo-Ukrainian struggle and use it as a pretext to blackmail Russia and Europe and dominate Europe’s political, security, and economic agenda and steer it to serve her interests. Hence, a Russo-American summit was held on Tuesday 7 December 2021 to debate and relaunch the “Strategic Stability Dialogue”, which was one of the most important outcomes of the Russo-American 2021 Geneva summit that gave America more time to redirect the standpoints of the European states, especially Germany after the US-Russian understandings allowed her to complete the Nord Stream2 project within certain conditions; however, the project is currently suspended due to the current Ukrainian crisis.

The Ukrainian crisis, as things stand, is considered a continuation of the policy of isolating and subjugating Russia. It could also be harnessed by America to depict a gloomy picture of Russia and to claim that the Russian onslaught cannot be halted and necessitates arming and supporting Ukraine while imposing maximum sanctions on Russia. However, leaks from the White House indicate that the political outcome will be to return to and launch the Minsk Protocol which is rigged by America and Russia. In other words, returning with the rifts back to square one, which perpetuates the state of instability and uncertainty while Putin attempts to polarise Germany and France through the statement of the Kremlin following the Summit between Putin and Biden, during which Putin told his US counterpart that “Ukraine was behaving provocatively and taking a ‘destructive line’ aimed at dismantling agreements.” This requires an effective role by the members of the Quartet, i.e., the intervention of France and Germany to fulfil their role, accept the federalisation of Ukraine or grant the provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk legal rights to protect themselves. Ukraine and Belarus represent a security nightmare to Russia just like Taiwan represents a nightmare to China. As for America, it seems she will not fully accept the calls for preventing Ukraine’s membership to NATO because her NATO membership is the hotbed of tension through which America nurtures and conducts relations between Russia and Europe, and it is part of the Charter concluded between Ukraine and America. The tension may be eased by agreeing on “not deploying offensive weapons and offensive missiles systems” on Ukrainian lands.

7 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
11 December 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Turkish Openness to Gulf States 

The Turkish regime’s openness towards the Gulf States following the steps of rapprochement with Egypt and the rapprochement with the Emirates, the formidable adversary of Erdogan’s “Islamist” regime, warrants a review of the aims behind this rapprochement for Turkey who has gone to extremes in distancing her foreign policies from the international willpower, except in coercive or expedient situations, whereby she has opted to condition the policies of this rapprochement in line with her national interests that provide the jostling Turkish political forces with electoral resources that nurture their popularity credentials.

As for the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement, it falls within reviewing the Emirati aims in light of the US policy towards Turkey at this stage which necessitates containing her, besieging Russia within her lebensraum and isolating China, subjecting her to the American willpower and regulating her according to the world order. The Emirates acts as America’s tool in polarising the countries of the world and influencing their domestic and foreign policies through the power of money to serve the American projects such as bankrolling Khalifah Haftar and supporting the energy and water projects expected to be built for the Zionist entity in Jordan. Similar to this trend is what Emirati investment in Turkish defence industries means in preventing their independence and keeping foreign loans and investments as the source for their infrastructures. Such loans need to be repaid in foreign currency, thus keeping Turkey caged within the global financial system that controls her economy. The UAE’s functional role that penetrates countries and impacts them with cash and through the state-owned firms could be read through the comment of Emirati minister Sultan al-Jabir on the Emirati-Turkish rapprochement; he said “you ought to know that the art of partnership is part and parcel of the UAE’s approach. This partnership was the key factor behind the numerous successes we have achieved over the past years.” It is well known that the Turkish economy has not been targeted as fiercely as this since the years that followed America’s decision to abandon the “Islamic model” option in the region, target Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and since Erdoğan decided to impede some of the American agendas in Syria and Iraq.

This Emirati-Turkish rapprochement and the visit of Mohammed bin Zayed, as well as the establishing of a ten-billion dollar fund to support investment in Turkey, have come amidst Erdoğan’s efforts to fend off the speculation attacks on the Turkish lira and the impact of its depreciation on Turkey’s energy imports as well as its impact on the masses’ purchasing power, notwithstanding its positive impact on export competitiveness. Moreover, the Turkish-Emirati rapprochement, in light of Erdoğan’s endeavour to open up to Saudi, Bahrain and Egypt, and his readiness to remedy the relationship with "Israel", has come to nullify the pretences of the opposition who have been calling for addressing the issues of foreign relations, and to ease the intensity of the confrontation with the states backing his opponents in the elections, especially the UAE. It has also come in light of Erdoğan’s need to ease the pressure on the Turkish economy and its fallouts on the political future of the AKP, especially as his foreign policy is mainly built on achieving interests, boosting the Turkish economy and filling the gaps in the issues undermining Turkish national security such as the issue of the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq which is viewed as a trump card in the bid to win the elections.

Although this rapprochement has been blessed by America despite Erdoğan’s persistence in acting independently in his foreign policy, it is however viewed as an attempt to attract and contain Erdoğan through the gates of economic benefits. The visit of Bahraini foreign minister and Saudi trade minister coincided with the visit of Mohammed bin Zayed and was seconded by the steps Erdoğan took to seek a rapprochement with Egypt, while stressing during his visit to Qatar that the “significant steps” his country took towards Abu Dhabi “would soon be matched with steps towards Cairo and Tel Aviv.”

This rapprochement between Turkey and the UAE has also come amidst the campaigns of the Turkish opposition who are seeking to topple the AKP and bring Turkey back to her functional role as NATO’s bridgehead to the Middle East and Central Asia in line with US strategy. In an attempt to weaken Erdoğan’s relationship with Russia and warn her against banking on him, and exhort her to snub him, Erdoğan’s arch rival, Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, told Russian magazine Kommersant “I want to recall the words of the current Turkish president who once said that losing power in Istanbul meant losing power in the whole country. They have realised they are losing their authority and they have little time left; and we have enough patience to wait for the departure of this government.” He also accused Erdoğan’s foreign policy of “bloody adventures that have become a threat to the security and stability of Turkey, and to her entire future.” Erdoğan was also slammed by the secularist opposition, former Turkish president Abdullah Gul and former prime minister Ahmed Davutoglu concerning the expulsion of the Canadian, French, Finnish, Danish, German, Dutch, New Zealand, Norwegian, Swedish and US ambassadors. They accused him of reckless behaviour and of causing Turkey “several problems in her international relations” and linked the deteriorating domestic conditions in Turkey to Erdoğan’s standpoints in foreign policy. This was a clear indication of the context and the aims behind the domestic and foreign problems Erdoğan has been facing.

Hence, the US has been pursuing the carrot and stick policy in dealing with Erdoğan through political and economic tools. She has been behind the Turkish opposition’s campaigns, the dismantling of the AKP and the speculation weakening the Turkish lira, and terrifying Erdoğan and impacting on his popularity while offering him the carrot of economic benefits with the Gulf States in order to contain him. At the same time, America has been attempting to drive a wedge between Russo-Turkish relations and Turkey’s relations with France and Europe through the files of the Middle East, Syria, Libya, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Despite the mutual positive steps between America and Turkey via the facilities that the Gulf States have offered Erdoğan, the relationship between Erdoğan and America will remain tinged with extreme caution as the former has been distrustful of the latter since the failed coup attempt, and because of America’s blatant support of his opponents in the Turkish opposition.US-Turkish relations will remain lukewarm and controlled by intersected interests as America continues to strongly back the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Kurds, and due to the relationship of President Putin with Erdoğan who is harnessing this situation to balance his relationships with Russia and America.

While Russia is benefitting from the relationship with Erdoğan in widening the wedge between NATO member states and undermining the alliance’s geopolitical platforms in Central Asia and southeast Russia, the US continues to deal with Turkey as a strategic asset in the American areas of influence in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Russian lebensraum, as long as Turkey continues to be a focal player according to the rules of the American political game and within its common limits between America and Turkey without necessarily affecting her wariness of Turkey’s growing power and regional role which she has been working to curtail in all directions by aggravating the situation in the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, to corroborate her military presence and deterrent force such as her recent decision to bolster her military troops in Greece. Meanwhile, Europe, particularly France, is dealing with Turkey as a political challenge and a security and demographic threat on the one hand, and as a vital and significant economic space for European states on the other hand. Hence, America will continue to attend to containing Erdoğan’s behaviour through the carrot and stick, and to work towards recapturing Turkey from the AKP via the Turkish opposition, considering that Turkey’s geostrategic position remains important to Western projects.

4 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
9 December 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Military Escalation in Yemen 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Military Escalation in Yemen

The month of November witnessed an increase in the intensity of military operations in several strategic positions in Yemen, especially in the strategic oil-rich governorate on Marib, where the most important refineries and power plants are located. It also witnessed intensive attacks in the governorate of Taiz, and the withdrawal of UAE-backed allied forces from their defensive positions around the seaport of al-Hudaydah, which was subsequently seized by the Houthis. Moreover, Saudi forces withdrew from their position in the military base of al-Burayqah in Aden, the Houthis occupied the US embassy in Sanaa, which had been shut since 2015, and missile and drone attacks on Saudi intensified. The military escalation and intensive missile attacks did not spare the Yemeni capital Sanaa, which has been subjected to a barrage of intensive missile attacks since 26 November, with the special operations unit carrying out a series of assassinations against al-Houthi leaders, to the point where the situation in Yemen has come close to total collapse in the political, economic, and financial spheres. The exchange rate of the Yemeni rial collapsed as it lost two thirds of its value and reached 1600 rials to the dollar. This heralds a catalogue of dire and devastating consequences that may lead to plunging the country into famine now that food prices have recently risen sharply.

This escalation has coincided with the UN report on the real famine from which 8 million Yemenis are suffering, and with another report by the UN Development Programme, which warned that by the end of 2021 the death toll of the war, which by next Ramadhan will have entered its eighth year, will have exceeded 377, 000.

This reality explains the statement of the Yemeni Shurah Council’s Chairman Ahmed Obaid Bin Dagher who accused the alliance of changing their objectives, the “Legitimacy” of having lost its leadership role, and the army of fighting with its minimum capabilities. Bin Dagher summed up the situation Yemen has come to by saying that, “the republic and the unity are being subjected to a deliberate and financed systematic destruction, and dismantling policies aimed at dividing and tearing the homeland and society apart.” He concluded “the military option ended in a stalemate and the humanitarian and living conditions have become catastrophic.” This implies the presence of clear indications suggesting an intention to turn the page of armed struggle and accept the reality and the borders drawn up by the military battles on the ground.

All this has come in the context of kick-starting the Iranian nuclear file, bringing Iran back to her initial functional role before the “Arab Spring”, and downsizing the activity of her surrogates in the region. It has also come against the backdrop of bin Salman’s pledge to change the face of Saudi in the next five years; in other words, the objectives of the Yemeni war are close to serving their purpose, which are reflected in federalising Yemen, terrifying and restructuring Saudi, and restoring Iran to her former function.

This is why on Thursday 30 November, and during an interview with the London-based Elaph newspaper, Yemeni Foreign Minister Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak linked the failure of UN envoys to Yemen to the “Iranian role”, which harnesses Yemen as part of its project in the region and to enhance its negotiating position. He also linked it to the lack of effective international pressure on the Houthis to compel them into opting for peace, and slammed the role of UN envoys to Yemen, which in his opinion is futile in the absence of an international will to generate a solution. He said, “none of the international envoys represent their personal willpower but rather the international willpower; hence, a significant part of any failure an international envoy faces will be down to the extent of support he receives, and the extent of influence wielded by the international powerbrokers to tackle the factors impeding peace.” This accentuates indirectly foreign intervention and imposes the dictates of the influential and relevant power, namely the US. Yemen has had four UN envoy since 2011, the last of whom was Hans Grundberg, who assumed his mission few months ago following the failure of his predecessors, Griffiths, Ould Cheikh, and Benomar, in achieving lasting peace. This is corroborated by what Saudi Foreign Minister Faysal bin Farhan told France24 channel on 14 November 2012, namely that his country, “is committed to ending the struggle in Yemen”. He reiterated the Saudi project calling for a ceasefire and blamed the surrogates of Iran, i.e., al-Houthi and Hezbollah, for the continuance of the struggle by saying, “but the Hezbollah-backed Houthis refuse to respond to these calls, despite the fact that they still stand. On the other hand, the Houthis continue to attack the city of Marib and to fire ballistic missiles on the kingdom.” The Saudi minister hinted at the desire of his country to move through the Saudi-Iranian talks towards “tackling vital issues preoccupying Saudi”, and indicated that ironing out the issues troubling the countries of the region was linked to “reaching a final agreement on the nuclear file.”

By reading the statements of Saudi and the Yemeni “Legitimacy”, we deduce a tendency to exert pressure on the Houthis, portray them as the extremist party threatening peace, link them to Hezbollah, denounce their political vision which is built on “clinging to the divine right to rule”, absolve the “Legitimacy” of responsibility to divide Yemen, and point the finger at the Houthis. Such calls cropped up during the speech of President Hadi on 30 November marking the 53rd anniversary of independence, in which he said, “this militia should be compelled to peace and national consensus…. And it should awake from the delusions of political hegemony and ethnic and lineal superiority.” For his part, Yemeni Foreign Minister was quoted as saying during the Rome Med - Mediterranean Dialogue currently held in the Italian capital that peace in Yemen necessitated from “the Houthi militia to forsake the divine right to rule and adhere to equal citizenship as a constitutional clause and an essential condition for permanent peace in Yemen.”

The omens of this approach emerged in the US in the shape of a report compiled by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and published by Marib Press website; it stated that the Houthis constituted the obstacle impeding the efforts aimed at settling the Yemeni crisis, that the militias confirmed their consistent intransigence, and they are nowadays toying with the slogan of Peace to bide time and stage further terrorist operations.

The report also stated that putting the Houthis back on the terrorist list “met the criteria” and that the Houthis’ status was a topic of debate by the US administration, adding that the Houthis’ dominion over the Yemeni western coastline could threaten the shipping of 6 million oil barrels a day via the Red Sea. This alluded to a warning to Europe and her interests in Bab al-Mandab designed to lure her into supporting the American solutions, especially now that the Ethiopian struggle has erupted.

As for the military withdrawals from the battlefield, they were interpreted by the spokesperson of the Arab Coalition Forces, Colonel Turki al-Maliki, as being “a redeployment process concordant with the strategic plan of the coalition”, without giving any elaboration on the strategic plan, which could be deduced from the American political demands from the coalition to undertake confidence-building measures to execute the final agreement on Yemen. This is expected to end the struggle by granting the Houthis some of their demands, namely lifting the air and naval siege imposed on Sanaa’s airport and the seaport of al-Hudaydah, securing their financial status and the energy security in Marib by sharing the oil revenues and taxes, and by pledging to secure the demands of bin Salman, namely providing Saudi with American protection, dissipating Saudi’s security fears, ending the threats of the Houthis, and supplying Saudi with sophisticated weapons against ballistic missiles and drones, as well as securing the status of the strategic Taiz governorate, which is deemed the southwestern access to Sanaa, where the “Giants Brigades” have been redeployed.

Moreover, the sweeping attack launched by the Houthi forces on Marib, which according to a statement by the Houthi Movement led to the death of 15,000 Houthi militiamen in the past six months, has brought the Houthis out of their mountainous strongholds to the open and flat spaces in Marib and Bijan and Shabwa, facilitated the task of the coalition forces, weakened the Houthis, and encouraged some tribes and parties, and southern Yemeni movements to rally around the coalition forces to fend off the Houthi attacks. This sent a message to the Houthis stipulating that the cycle of violence would only end if political concessions were made and foreign dictates were observed through the Saudi-Iranian understandings concluded at the Baghdad meetings. This approach is perfectly compatible with the context sought by America and her policies calling for accepting the influence of the fait accompli and the division on its basis.

The region will undoubtedly enter a dark tunnel with no light at the end of it, as long as those in charge of its affairs are but pawns amidst the powers with covetous designs in our lands. Those powers are reorganising the region in order to preserve their interests, irrespective of the interests of the Muslims, the owners of these lands. The status quo of these lands will remain the same unless the Ummah moves to seize control of her forces to remedy the situation, removes these meagre entities, which derive the means of their existence from complying with the demands of the covetous powers, and establish the Khilafah State, which will restore of the Muslims and the rule of Allah the Almighty on earth, and endeavour to remove the injustice afflicting not just the Muslims, but the nations and peoples of the entire world.

“For, Allah always prevails in whatever be His purpose.” [Yusuf-21]

2 Jumada al-Oolah 1443h
6 December 2021

Kick-Starting the Iranian Nuclear File 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Kick-Starting the Iranian Nuclear File

A fresh round of talks on the Iranian nuclear deal were initiated in Vienna on Monday 29 November 2021 against a backdrop of US and European pledges to the usurping entity to cast off the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, "Israeli" defence minister Naftali Bennett announced during a security conference that his country was not party to the negotiations and thus was not bound by it. Iran for her part has deliberately let it slip that she had increased the level of enrichment in her stockpile and acquired 30 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, which was interpreted as a reduction of the break-out time, i.e., the period Iran needs to produce weapons grade enriched uranium to develop a nuclear weapon, from 12 months, as was the case under the nuclear deal, to 11 months currently as per the statement of the Arms Control Association.

According to what has been declared, the diplomatic stimulation of these talks, which had been suspended for six months, aims to gauge Iran’s readiness to “negotiate in good faith”, as a host of intransigent statements had been issued by her new leadership on the need to lift the sanctions imposed by the former US administration that have paralysed the Iranian economy and prohibited any commercial and financial dealings with Iran. However, although Joe Biden’s administration has been gearing towards concluding a deal with Iran to induce her into fulfilling the "Israeli" and the rightwing evangelical Christians’ demands in the US, and gifting the Democrats an achievement they could invest in the November midterm elections, it nevertheless refuses to grant Iran any incentives in exchange for attending the talks, and intends to only lift few sanctions. This was deduced from the purport of the messages of reassurance America sent to her five partners in the talks and from the statements of her slaves in the Gulf who called for the need to restore the nuclear deal, by holding several meetings as part of an intensive diplomatic campaign. Special Envoy for Iran Rob Malley tweeted on 18 November 2021 that he had “met with the E3 political directors and senior officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the GCC to discuss 2 paths open to Iran: continued nuclear escalation & crisis, or mutual return to the JCPOA, creating opportunities for regional economic & diplomatic ties.” He also exhorted the Iranian leadership to fulfil the requirements of the deal by saying “time to choose is short.”

This is reflected in the statements of US National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Brett McGurk, who attended the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Manama Dialogue and confirmed “if advances in Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capability continue unabated, they could render the benefits of the JCPOA moot - a development that would force the U.S. to pursue other options.” And in a message designed to reassure the usurping entity and its supporters in America, Brett McGurk added that “when it comes to military force to prevent a country from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that is a very achievable objective."

By observing the developments of the Iranian nuclear file, we deduce that the US concluded it during the “Arab Spring” and within the context of exerting pressure on bin Salman to speed up the process of liberal openness, pressurising the Arab regimes and preparing them to integrate into the regional solution, which necessitated shifting the compass of belligerence away from the usurping entity and towards the Iranian threat to the region, and containing Netanyahu, who was at the time eager to attack Iran for personal and partisan motives. This prompted former US President Barack Obama to pledge to "Israel" that if all the options were exhausted, the US Central Command would attack Iran; and back then, the US defence secretary showed "Israeli" defence minister Ehud Barak a video of “anti-fortification” bombs especially designed against Iran.

As the Trump administration initiated the “Deal of the Century” and set about smashing the obstacle impeding the process of alliance and normalisation with "Israel", Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal, induced Iran’s threat to the Arab countries through her surrogates in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria, and instructed the UAE, Morocco, Sudan, and Bahrain to conclude direct agreements with the "Israeli" entity. It also escalated tensions with Iran by launching a flurry of fiery statements, assassinating Qassim Suleimani and inviting "Israel" to join the US Central Command, in order to contain the "Israeli" rightwing and Netanyahu who was obsessed with his electoral premonitions, and terrify Saudi which was subjected to intensive attacks by the Houthis.

When Biden and his political team, who had initially concluded the nuclear deal with Iran, acceded to power, America conspired to let the Iranian conservative wing win the elections in order to tame its partisan and popular bases with sanctions and compel it into acquiescing to the entire American project for the Middle East, and then move towards concluding a deal that would help Iran end her isolation and tackle her deteriorating economy, while fulfilling the volition of Western powers and the need of Biden and the Democrats for a political achievement that would boost their electoral credentials. This would also dampen the aspirations of the Iranian conservatives and weaken their popular bases and surrogates in the region, especially as the former deal froze the Iranian nuclear project without dismantling it altogether, and left a vacuum that needs to be filled in the future on the monitoring mechanism and the dismantling of equipment.

Hence, the point at issue is not the Iranian project as such, but rather the Iranian role in the Greater Middle East Initiative and its repositioning to the rhythm of US policy towards the region, once it has been dismantled and restructured to preserve US national security that is epitomised in controlling the oil resources and in the military base within the heart of the Islamic world, namely the usurping entity.

As for the details, tactics, and timing, these are dictated by the realities on the ground and by the tackling of the fallouts of the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) such as America’s U-turn on destroying the ruling regimes after they had broken the taboos and expressed their willingness to impose the integration of the "Israeli" entity on the masses of the region. This was revealed by Brett McGurk in Manama who said that America had ditched the policy of “nation building” and changing the regimes that appeared in the Middle East after 9/11.

Therefore, the current round of talks will either lead to a resolution requiring an Iranian compliance with the demands of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), which includes allowing inspectors to return and service the surveillance cameras at the Iranian nuclear sites and granting the NEA the right to visit those sites, or to the agency issuing a report admonishing Iran’s behaviour, thus giving the Biden administration ample time to finalise the structuring of the regimes in Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, speed up the process of political transformation in Saudi, and acclimatise "Israeli" public opinion and the government of Bennett according to the requirements of the regional settlement. The latest political stimulation could pave the way for a solution which will set the conservative Iranian leadership back to square one, and for embarking on settling the crisis in parallel with the progress in solving the regional files as was the case in Iraq where Prime Minister al-Kadhimi has made great strides in retuning the political balance and downsizing Iranian influence, in addition to Syria where the rehabilitation of the regime is underway. This explains the statement of the US negotiating team in which it said that the Council would have no choice but to reconvene in an extraordinary session before the end of the year to tackle the crisis.

The omens of Iran’s response were reflected in the statement of Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Bagheri, who told Iranian television that Iran “calls for guarantees from America that she would neither impose fresh sanctions nor reimpose the previous sanctions.” In fact, successive US administrations have maintained the general strategy in dealing with the Iranian file despite the change of tactics, such as pulling out of the deal during the tenure of President Donald Trump, with the aim of achieving a wider restructuring of the regimes of the region through the presence of an enemy called Iran. The US administration has harnessed sanctions against Iran to tackle the Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, and Yemeni file; the Iranian nuclear project has also been harnessed by Washington to speed up the process of military, diplomatic and economic integration. Hence, America would not find it hard to conjure up a solution which would bring the Iranian military nuclear programme to a grinding halt, replace it with a civil and peaceful nuclear energy programme and link it to the requirements of environmental policy. This would probably take place sooner rather than later as the US administration is engrossed in midterm elections, and especially as the Biden administration is facing severe criticism from the Republicans due to its slackness in keeping the tempo of pressure on Iran such as the military, security, and intelligence campaigns, and tightening financial and commercial sanctions to deal the interests of the Iranian regime a heavy blow.

26 Rabi’ al Thani 1443h
1 December 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - The Unfolding Events in Ethiopia 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Unfolding Events in Ethiopia

The fallouts of the struggle that erupted on 5 November following a clash between the Prime Minister and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) continue to cast their shadow on the political scene in Ethiopia, aggravating in the process its convolution and ambiguity. At the beginning of the month TPLF announced that its operatives had reached the region of Kemise, which is 325 kilometres north of the capital Addis Ababa, where they joined the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and posed a threat to the capital Addis Ababa and terrified Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed who declared a state of emergency and called on the veterans to rejoin the army to defend his regime.

Tunisia’s Crisis: Between Affiliation to France & Pleasing America 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Tunisia’s Crisis:
Squandering the Country between Affiliation to France & Pleasing America
Islam’s Standpoint

The exceptional decisions in Tunisia backed by presidential commands have been in force since 25 July and the President of the Republic, Kais Saied, continues to temporise and dodge the international forces’ demands to restore the state’s institutions, act according to the 2014 constitution and implement the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which has stipulated the restoring of the institutions before resuming payments of the aid instalments so that the country may surpass its economic crisis. This indicates the international forces’ insistence on the return of parliament, which lends legitimacy to the laws and secures the concluded agreements. The measures of President Kais Saied have led to paralysing parliament, suspending the constitution, and extending the exceptional measures indefinitely, and assigned the overseeing of all the state’s executive, legislative and judiciary institutions to the cabinet, which is answerable to the President of the Republic.

Despite the flocking of international delegations to Tunisia and the various domestic statements by the parties, political figures and the Tunisian General Labour Union, and the foreign statements by the European Parliament, US Congress and a host of countries, with the aim of steering the confused Tunisian President towards executing the foreign dictates and the domestic requirements, he however opted for buying time to achieve several aims according to the vision that is more conformant to French interests in order to secure his continuance in power and work towards purging the security and judicial circles, in addition to other leaderships, and replace them with leaderships and executives loyal to him and with Francophone tendencies.

By monitoring the international interaction with the Tunisian political scene following presidential decree 177 issued on 22 September, which significantly corroborated the competencies of the President, it transpires that America has been exerting pressure on President Kais Saied in order to rectify his behaviour which has deviated due to his dependence on France and the Francophone forces in Tunisia, his narcissism and hunger for absolute power, and his lack of political experience, in addition to his attempt to sit on two chairs, namely the French and the American. This approach has angered America and evoked the apprehensions of her agents within the Free Constitutional Party (PDL), which turned on the measures undertaken by the President after it had been supportive of them. The PDL’s president, Abeer Moussa, announced that she had paved the way for the measures undertaken by the President of the Republic, which was viewed as a message from her and America, designed to remind the President of his political affiliation.

The omens of the American anger towards President Kais Saied emerged during the visit to the region by the Commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), Stephen Townsend, where he met Algerian President Abdul Majid Taboun and Libyan interim Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, while his visit to Tunisia was confined to a meeting with the chief of staff at the airport in the presence of US Ambassador Donald Bloom whom President Joe Biden decided to appoint as Ambassador to Pakistan without appointing his successor. The tension between Kais Saied and America was also evident through the complaint he submitted to Donald Bloom regarding US meddling in Tunisian domestic affairs.

Due to the pressures being exerted on him, Kais Saied announced on Thursday 4 November that he had instructed the minister of communications to devise an electronic survey on the amendments he intended to introduce to the constitution which he has been constantly reiterating his commitment to, despite having issued several decisions that curbed it and maintained all competencies in his hand. This was France’s gamble to preserve her economic and Francophone interests in Tunisia; and this explains why Kais Saied has appointed several Francophone officials, headed by Prime Minister Najla Boden, who is notorious for her Francophone tendencies that are vehemently hostile towards Islam, and why he has been hunting down the deputies of the Dignity Coalition, who built their 2019 electoral campaign on curtailing French interests.
It is well known that the reluctance of America’s agents in the Tunisian army to object to the decisions of Kais Saied, and the regional cover he has received from America’s agents in Egypt and the UAE, were designed to contain him, curb his Francophone tendencies, and give him a free rein to liquidate the Islamists and downsize their role, and retune the political forces that had caused a widespread resentment due to the practices of parliament before its dissolution.

According to this mechanism, the US would benefit from venting the anger of the masses and compelling the President to sever his dubious contacts with France. It would also coerce the parties to adapt to their functional role, namely entrenching the secularist liberal approach, and inducing the masses into accepting the reversal in the balance of power, the restructure, and the progress according to its basis.

These measures, which have been undertaken through the French devilish insinuations and an American green light, have led to fragmenting the largest party attributed to “political Islam”, namely al-Nahda Movement; 130 senior operatives have quit the movement and this will impact negatively on the Islamic project embraced by the hearts and minds, weaken its progress on the political scene and public life, and marginalise its campaigners to the advantage of the collaborating secularist political milieu and the Western colonialist projects in the Muslims’ lands, especially as Tunisia has epitomised the approach and the example for the people of the region through the “Arab Spring”.

Hence, our people in Tunisia and the rest of the Muslims’ lands ought to be extremely heedful of the plots being concocted against them within the Western decision-making circles, and very wary of the political milieu that has saturated the country with rottenness and treason, even if their devils were to cling to the curtains of the Kaaba.

The Muslims in Tunisia should beware of siding with either of the parties embroiled in the domestic struggle because they are nothing but dummies controlled by the colonialist powers; they only jostle for serving the colonialists and compete for who would be a plantation slave or a domestic slave, exactly like the slaves used to compete to please the American master.

Hence, we do not expect any good to come from them. And it is imperative to unearth everything they issue since it would be implausible to design a different cloak from the same fabric. The only salvation for our Ummah is to hold on tight to the Book of Allah the Almighty and the guidance of our Prophet ﷺ, and to work towards resuming the Islamic way of life, which would in turn purge the political milieu and annihilate those who attempt to corrupt it. The only change we ought to aspire to is the real change that leads to building an impregnable state which would represent our Aqeedah and our Shari'ah, which prohibits pledging loyalty to the Kuffar and commands holding tight to the strong rope of Allah the Almighty.

“And incline not towards those who do wrong lest the Fire touch you” [Hud-113]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir                                                                                                                                                                                                 
The Committee in Charge                                                                                                                                                                            
Tunisia

5 Rabi’ al-Thani 1443h / 10 November 2021

hizbuttahrir.org  

Sudan Military Coup Against Hamdok & Forces of Freedom and Change 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Abdel Fattah al-Burhan’s Coup Against Hamdok’s Government and the Forces of Freedom and Change

As US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, was visiting Sudan, the Sudanese army, headed by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, staged on Monday 25 October a military coup that toppled his political partners, foremost among whom was Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan arrested several politicians, dissolved the Sovereignty Council and the cabinet, and declared a state of emergency. He also froze some articles of the Constitutional Declaration to sidestep the proviso of handing over the leadership of the Sovereignty Authority to a civilian personality selected by the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), whose mission comes into force on 17 November 2021.

By scrutinising the measures undertaken by al-Burhan under such political tension and the articles of the Constitutional Declaration he has suspended, we conclude that their suspension leads to confining authority in the hands of the army and targets the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) who had been intransigent with regard to assuming power in less than a month, especially as the decision to dissolve the government is constitutionally impracticable since it is exclusively down to the willpower of the Freedom and Change Forces. The articles suspended by al-Burhan have affected the FFC who wish to jostle with the army and seize power rather than continuing to act as a cover for military rule. Al-Burhan held the FFC responsible for the failure of the transitional administration. He also cancelled Article 24.3 which stipulates that 67 percent of the Transitional Legislative Council is chosen by the FFC while the remaining 33 percent is chosen by the other civilian forces after consulting the military members of the sovereign council.

As soon as he arrived in Khartoum, US Special Envoy Jeffrey Feltman met the president of the Sovereignty Council Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, his deputy Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo and Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok. He also held a series of meetings with leaders of the Freedom and Change alliance whose divisions threaten the authority of the army. Jeffrey Feltman also met the leaders of the Justice and Equality Movement, Jibril Ibrahim, and Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), Mini Arko Minawi, who split from the FFC. The US embassy in Khartoum stated that Feltman had “confirmed to the Sudanese officials that US support depended on their adherence to the transitional system agreed upon through the Constitutional Declaration and Juba Peace Agreement. The embassy also mentioned that Feltman had urged the Sudanese government to execute the main transitional criteria according to a set of timetables to include establishing the Transitional Legislative Council, agreeing on a handover date of the Sovereignty Council to civilians, reforming the security services, laying down a framework for the elections, restructuring the Constitutional Court and setting up the mechanisms of transitional justice.

This indicates that the problem lies in the government, the FFC and the popular protests surrounding the transition process. Feltman’s demands sidestep the timetables that had previously been agreed and reveal America’s desire to extend military rule during the transitional period; this was reflected in the demands made by US State Department spokesperson Ned Price last Friday and US Envoy Feltman to the government of Hamdok to respond to the demands of protestors such as establishing the legislative council and expanding the authority which will undermine the influence of the FFC. Feltman also called for establishing the transitional justice mechanisms, which civilian authorities have been calling for, thus giving the top brass implicated in crimes and corruption time and protection.

It seems, up until now, that America has been compelled to tackle the delicate transitional situation and divisions in the military and its struggle with the political forces by assigning the task of completing the political process to the army since the transition is yet to mature, especially with the eruption of the political struggles and the rebellion of eastern areas; this narrative was expressed by US Envoy Feltman who said the broad alliance was facing an organisational crisis and internal rifts needed to be resolved.

America’s timid denunciation of al-Burhan’s actions and calls for the return of the democratic process and resumption of the political transition are nothing but an attempt to conceal her backing of the necessary coup which took place in the presence of Feltman, and to exert pressure on the various sides of the political struggle to implement the US agenda. Feltman said the civilian and military components should cooperate to execute the main standards of the transitional period instead of striving to marginalise each other.

Moreover, the US administration’s sloganising of democracy together with its liberal values is consistent with the Democratic Party’s trends and the American campaign against the Chinese and against Islam.

Hence, the key to the enigma of this farcical saga that has been taking place in Sudan since the army toppled Omar al-Bashir and up to this scandalous American coup, lies in pursuing the visit of the US Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, which involves reshuffling the pack for the time being in order to keep the components of the political equation in check, and corroborating the political structuring through the army due to the fragility of the political, security and economic situation, and the unripening transfer from military to civilian power amid the volition of the civilian authorities to push the process of transitional justice forward. This has unnerved the army commanders who dread losing legal immunity and their economic gains, and thus weakening the American endeavour to structure the Sudanese regime and shape its domestic and foreign political standpoint. This led al-Burhan to suspend the enquiry into the crime of quelling the protests of 3 June 2019 with the aim of entrenching the centrality of the army, unifying its ranks to undertake the traitorous role assigned to it by America to preserve her interests on the regional plane and suppressing the masses who are eager to rid themselves of colonialism, its culture, and its collaborators. This is why America did not describe the action of al-Burhan as a coup but rather as seizing the authority of the government, which will pave the way for resuming the political transition under the appropriate conditions.

As for America’s decision to freeze the financial aid estimated at $700 million, it was concordant with her desire to postpone the political transition since the aid in the first instance was allocated to the transitional process. Meanwhile, the statements of US officials focused on what concerns America in Sudan, namely the Constitutional Charter and the Juba Agreement which leads to a federal division and political transition on secularist constitutional grounds to which al-Burhan expressed his commitment in his putschist communiqué, thus making the coup conformant to the American trend.

Despite domestic divisions and power-hungry tendencies, and amidst popular resentment and aversion to military rule and the government of Hamdok, we fear the conspicuous aspects of a collaboration between all the political and military forces to entrench the outputs of the constitutional charter, and the aggravation of the current crisis, which is being nurtured by both the army and the political forces. We also fear that the return to the political transition and the Juba Agreement will be portrayed as a victory to the masses and their “revolution”, especially as the measures undertaken by al-Burhan have not suspended political life, which means that the coup has been designed to reregulate the components of the political equation; this in turn explains why the secularist political parties within the FFC and their activities have not been prohibited.

The Muslims’ lands will remain a scene for the forces of Kufr and their collaborators who will continue to control the situation and preserve the conditions desired by the forces of Kufr in Muslim lands unless the sincere individuals and those capable of rectifying the situation move to generate a serious and real change that will place Islam in implementation domestically and turn it into an ideological message to be conveyed by the state to the world.

20 Rabi’ al-Thani 1443h
26 October 2021

hizbuttahrir.org
  

Iranian Escalation against Azerbaijan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Iranian Escalation against Azerbaijan

Iran has kept her anger in check over the geopolitical changes resulting from Turkey’s intervention in the latest war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which led to Azerbaijan recovering most of her lands and threatening the route connecting Iran to Armenia and compelled the latter to move towards bettering her relations with Turkey who subsequently gained the upper hand over Iran who failed to lure Azerbaijan to her side despite the sectarian commonality between the two countries. The secularist trait dominating Azerbaijan’s masses, who share the same language with the Turks, and the nationalistic rift between Iran and Azerbaijan helped tilt the scales in favour of Turkey, especially amidst the international and regional pressure being exerted on the functional role of Iran who has been worryingly driven to adopt a host of approaches to preserve her gains, bulwark her borders and domestic frontline, and fill the gaps that may ignite nationalistic emotions threatening to fragment her societal fabric and regional influence which has started to be eroded in Iraq, especially in the aftermath of the recent parliamentary elections, in Syria following the American green light and the Russian collusion to rehabilitate the Syrian regime via its rapprochement with several Arab states, which is viewed as an alternative to Iranian support whose role has been exhausted, and in Lebanon through the constant pressures exerted on Hezbollah such as the targeting of the recent protests staged by Hezbollah which is designed to lure it into using its weapons and thus placing the file of its weapons on the table. All this flows in favour of Turkey’s regional weight and the Zionist influence through the gates of the anticipated Arab official normalisation and political and economic integration with the usurping entity within the framework of generating the regional solution and turning the people of the region’s compass of animosity towards Iran.

In this context, Iran staged on 1 October military drills on her borders with Azerbaijan under the theme of Conquerors of Khaybar, which reflects Iranian security fears of "Israeli" presence on Iranian-Azerbaijani borders and coincided with the second anniversary of the Karabakh battle in which Azerbaijan regained most of her occupied lands. The Iranian military drills acted as a warning to Azerbaijan, who has had parts of her lands occupied by Iran since 1945, especially after the misgivings raised by Turkish President Erdoğan who on 1 December 2020, and during an Azerbaijani military parade, read a poem reminding the Azerbaijanis of their unity with their brethren in neighbouring Iran which evoked the wrath of the Iranians who deemed it a call for fragmentation and an incitement.

In response to the timing of the Iranian military manoeuvres, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev said “every country is entitled to stage military drills on its land. It is a sovereign right, but with regard to the timing, we do not see it as ordinary. Why now, and specifically on our borders?”

He also seized the opportunity to curb the activities of the Europeans who have been attempting to contain the American and "Israeli" escalations against Iran, by accusing Iran of sponsoring drug smuggling into Europe via Armenia. He said “Armenia colluded with Iran for about 30 years to use occupied Azerbaijani lands as a route for smuggling drugs into Europe.”

Amid these military developments, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev announced on 2 October that he would “involve international and regional forces if Iran persisted with the military drills near Azerbaijan’s borders”. Meanwhile, the Turkish defence ministry announced on 4 October that it would hold joint military drills with Azerbaijan between 5-8 October under the theme of “The Unwavering Brotherhood 2021” in the Nakhchivan province near the borders with Iran in order to send a clear message on protecting geographic interaction between Turkey and Azerbaijan via the Zangezur corridor in southern Armenia, which would cut the route between Iran and Armenia.

Iran for her part hastened to strengthen her relationship with Armenia by concluding several military agreements allowing Iranian drones to fly over Armenian airspace and the Iranian army to establish military bases in the province of Syunik in an attempt to influence the Armenian standpoints and impede Turkish expansion and geographic interaction between Turkey and Azerbaijan and from there, towards southern Caucasus and Central Asia.

Based on the aforementioned, we perceive that the focal issue of the Iranian regime lies in security fears and the exchanged "Israeli" -Iranian attacks within the context of regional rivalry, and to a greater extent, it lies in the geopolitical changes that resulted from the Azerbaijan-Armenia war, as well as the caveats of Turkey’s expansion in the southern Caucasus region and her intention to revive the notion of the Turkish World, and the impact of all this on the geographic unity of Iran and her interaction with Armenia, and its fallouts on her economic resources and societal fabric of which Azeris constitute 25%, and remind Iran of “Greater Azerbaijan”, in addition to the unwarranted prospect of Azerbaijan – with Russian collusion – reseizing control of the commercial route between Iran and Armenia and imposing taxes on Iranian trucks. Meanwhile, Armenia has been endeavouring to unconditionally normalise ties with Turkey due to the significant economic interests this may yield on her masses who have been enduring a stifling economic crisis. This normalisation between Turkey and Armenia, which is currently being devised, will impact positively on Azerbaijan-Armenia relations and in favour of Turkey, a situation which Iran finds worrisome as it undermines her interests and heralds its besiegement, especially after the joint military drills carried out between Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan in Baku on 12 September under the theme of Three Brothers 2021.

It is well known that although Russia and America have been jostling for dominating the region, Turkey’s geopolitical importance, as far as they are concerned, outweighs Iran’s in that region which means the Russo-American collusion comes in favour of Turkey at the expense of Iran. America does have an interest in Turkey’s incursion into the Russian lebensraum and in keeping it as a hotbed of tension between Russia and Turkey and a pretext to intervene and expand NATO towards Russian borders, whereas Russia finds the clash of interests between Iran and Turkey expedient as she would be able to manipulate their interests, conduct their crises and lure and contain them, especially Turkey who represents a bridgehead for NATO towards her borders. Hence, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov pointed during his meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, to the escalating crisis between Iran and Azerbaijan in southern Caucasus saying that it was the focus of a detailed study. He also revealed a mechanism proposed by Russia to defuse the tension based on initiating a dialogue according to a 3+3 formula, i.e., the countries of southern Caucasus: Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the three neighbouring countries: Russia, Turkey and Iran. Iranian foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, for his part announced during the press conference with Lavrov that his country “will not accept any changes in the borders in southern Caucasus”. Hence, what is occurring falls under Iran’s attempts to withstand the challenges and pressures surrounding her with the aim of restraining and compelling her to return to her original functional role, a situation upon which Russia, America, Turkey and "Israel" agree.

It is regrettable that the aggravation of the crisis will only lead to haemorrhaging Muslim blood and all the proposed solutions, in the absence of the State of Islam, proceed only according to the narrow interests of the rulers and on nationalistic and divisive grounds that lead to achieving the interests of the colonial powers that are belligerent towards the Ummah.

15 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1443h
21 October 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Macron’s Grudge against Muslims & Algeria 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - President Macron’s Grudge against Muslims & Algeria

Observing France’s domestic and foreign political position would lead us to deduce that she is an independent state. However, exactly like Turkey, she is incapable of controlling her destiny. According to a French strategist, “France wants more than anything to have sovereignty; and yet her sovereignty is inadequate to secure her national interest.” This situation is reflected in her domestic and foreign policy and pushes her to adapt to the willpower of major powers and the necessities of reality, especially when she is targeted by the world’s leading power to dwarf her, push her back to her national borders and engross her in local and regional problems. This is what is happening to Britain, France, and Russia.

Examples of American incursions into the French system and the attempts to destabilise and dismantle the mechanisms of its independence are numerous. America set about investing in the issues of “terrorism”, the environment, French identity and the Yellow Vests’ protests while dominating major French companies such as Total and Michelin through Anglo-Saxon investment portfolios to quash their effectiveness and their colonialist economic tools, and reducing their fiscal revenues through the dominance of technology giants. America has also invested in influencing France’s domestic policies by propagating secessionist and anti-immigration views through social media, infiltrating media outlets with far-right tendencies, and evoking the issue of political corruption in France since the tenure of President Francois Mitterrand.
These American styles of undermining French political life have been known since she incited the students and workers’ movements which toppled the government of France’s war hero Charles De Gaulle after he had attempted to restore the gold standard and destroy the Bretton Woods system which was designed to turn the dollar into the unrivalled world currency.

America has recently been striving to project France as an impotent state by exposing her frailties in the Libyan issue in Mali, and in the tussle with Turkey, in which her pride was dented, and through the AUKUS agreement which sabotaged France’s opportunity to have a pioneering presence in the Indo-Pacific region and deprived her of the chance to have a significant share in the region’s weapons’ market.

Meanwhile, the French government is attempting to redirect the French masses’ attention towards protecting the constitution, freedoms and the secularist identity by launching an onslaught on Islam, promoting national protectionism, and inciting public opinion against globalisation issues, the Anglo-Saxon fiscal system and immigration to tighten the grip on the communities, harness their weightiness as financial and cultural resources for their motherlands, and exert pressure on them to preserve what she has left in terms of influence and interests. Recent examples of this are France’s decision to halve the quotas of visas issued to Algerian and Moroccan nationals, reduce the quota of visas issued to Tunisian nationals to one third, and the statements French newspaper Le Monde published on 2 October attributed to President Macron, which Algeria deemed “offensive and an unacceptable interference” and “an infringement on the memory of millions of Algerians”; Le Monde quoted Macron as saying that “the official history of Algeria has been completely rewritten” and that “this history is not based on facts but on the hatred harboured by Algerian authorities towards France.” The timing and surrounding circumstances of Macron’s statement should be taken into account since it came after France had been dealt a heavy and painful blow, and she needed to restore her foreign, political and diplomatic pride, in addition to Macron’s need to win over the populist rightwing, which political rivals are desperately attempting to win over ahead of the forthcoming elections of April 2022.

Hence, the behaviour of French leaders reflects their anxieties over their domestic political future and the risk of losing the remaining French influence overseas, especially in Algeria’s political milieu on which America has gradually started to tighten her grip, weakening France’s collaborators influence over it. This is corroborated by Macron’s questioning of the existence of “an Algerian nation before the French colonialism”, meaning that we the French, were responsible for shaping the contemporary image of the Algerian state and its men loyal to the West and its culture. Moreover, the statements of Macron came within the context of precautionary measures against the calls of the countries afflicted by colonialism for an apology and compensation, especially after Germany had compensated her former colony Namibia for the genocide she perpetrated during her occupation of the southwestern African country. This is why the response of the Algerian presidency was sharp, though it somewhat included some harnessing of Macron’s statement to curry favour with the masses who are resentful towards their regime and rulers. The Algerian presidency deemed Macron’s statements as “an unacceptable infringement of the memory of 5,630,000 martyrs who sacrificed their lives in a brave resistance against French colonialism”, stressing that “France’s colonialist crimes are innumerable; they are tantamount to a genocide against the Algerian people, yet, these crimes are unrecognised, and they should not be the subject of offensive manoeuvres.”

From this perspective of the French domestic and foreign political standpoint, and against the background of the preparatory and primary phase of the elections of April 2022, which French political parties have started taking the first steps since September, we can perceive the context in which French leaders are operating, especially that no candidate is expected to win a majority in the first round. The elections are expected to move to a second round in which Macron and Le Pen, the rightwing candidate, will partake, as other parties were unable to translate their gains in the local elections at the republic level.

It is worth mentioning that throughout the era of the Fifth Republic, only Giscard d'Estaing and Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in being re-elected to the post of President in 1981 and 2007 respectively. Nevertheless, current opinion polls indicate that Macron is in the lead after he succeeded in executing harsh policies towards Islam and immigration, the two files representing the arsenal of the candidates for the elections, amidst the worrying argument over the identity of the French people. Hence, reducing the quotas of visas issued to the Muslims of North Africa, the campaigns undertaken by the interior ministry against mosques, Islamic centres and Muslims, Macron hoisting the banner of combating “Islamism” under the theme of combating “separatism” and illegal migration plus his racist statements against Algeria, all this is linked to the decline in France’s continental and international standing, her attempts to regain it, or at least carry out a damage limitation exercise, and to Macron’s electoral campaign to polarise the rightwing and centrist French voters, as he has practically failed in his domestic and international policies.

Inasmuch as Macron’s statements serve his electoral campaign and his foreign political agenda, they also serve the Algerian ruling junta which has lost its credibility despite its attempts to gain legitimacy through bogus elections. Macron’s statements triggered a wave of anger among Algerian mainstream public opinion, accompanied by a host of measures undertaken by the Algerian government such as recalling its ambassador to Paris and closing its airspace to French military planes supporting operations in the African Sahel, which will aggravate the French failure in Mali, evoke the emotions of the masses in Algeria, who resent their regime, and deepen their hatred towards France.

The colonial powers’ audacity to wreak havoc in Muslim lands and their disregard towards the dignity of the Ummah is brought about by the state of fragmentation the Muslims are experiencing and the absence of their state and their independent willpower. They have no other way to salvage themselves from this wretched situation except through mustering their power, unity, and resoluteness from the inspiration of their Book and the sunnah of their Messenger ﷺ, elevating their thought, building their state and generating their leader whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ described as “the shield they fight behind him and they are protected by him.”

2 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1443h
8 October 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

AUKUS & the French Submarine Crisis 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - AUKUS & the French Submarine Crisis

In what its Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian described as a “stab in the back”, France has heavily criticised Australia’s decision to cancel a huge deal she had signed with her in 2016 to purchase conventionally powered submarines in preference of a strategic partnership with the US and Britain. America and Britain announced also that they would supply Australia with the technology to build nuclear-powered submarines within the framework of a strategic security partnership and a tripartite alliance known as AUKUS.

Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced that the security agreement his country concluded with the UK and the US would allow Washington to bolster her military presence in Australia. As the AUKUS agreement was announced, and despite statements from Europe sympathising with France, the European political division nurtured by the rift between the US and France emerged and was evident in the conflict between upholding a unified standpoint and exercising one’s volition and in the newspapers as well as the statements of several officials. In her State of the Union address, President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen tackled the direction of the EU on three important and strategic topics which all serve Joe Biden’s agenda towards China, namely a rival initiative to the Belt and Road Initiative, a European policy for the Indo-Pacific region and European security and defence policy. However, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, described the European vision towards the Indian and Pacific Oceans as being a cooperative rather than a confrontational approach, which is the policy France has been calling for towards Russia and China, thus contradicting the American approach built on alliances that Biden referenced when saying “When we strengthen our alliances, we amplify our power…..we will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s.”

The aim of the American approach is to isolate Russia and China while dwarfing France, subjugating and integrating her into the policy devised for the EU to preserve the current world order that in turn guarantee’s US long term undisputed dominion over the international situation. This was expressed by former Secretary of State Pompeo who said the “…Chinese Communist Party[‘s] … actions are the primary challenge today in the free world…Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity” adding “We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams.”

Hence, it is now clear that the step America, Britain and Australia have taken falls under the necessary plans and arrangements to reassure Britain, who has exited the EU, and reassure Australia and the countries neighbouring China, and on the other hand, isolate and contain China, lay siege to her economic growth and regional ambitions, prevent her from taking any steps that may undermine the political, security and economic system that America has anchored in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and the South China Sea, prevent her from bullying the countries of the region and any endeavours that may lead to changing the status quo, destabilise the world order and threaten US interests and Western values. This was alluded to by the White House spokesperson when she commented on the tripartite partnership and alliance by saying “This partnership, announced yesterday, is not about any one country. This is about advancing our strategic interests, the strategic interest of the United States, upholding the international rules-based order, and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.” Over the last two decades, China has embarked on upgrading its naval defence system since its major strategic dilemma lies in her need for safe passage to the Pacific and Indian Oceans, especially as she has been targeted by the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), strengthening of Taiwan’s defence capabilities via a host of arms deals, bulwarking Hong Kong through the Sino-British agreement of 1997, the highlighting of the Uyghurs’ issue and demonising her on Covid-19. China has also been targeted by the Integrated Strategic Deterrence, which US military commanders urged to be swiftly implemented two months ago and is designed to deter China from thieving technology, violating intellectual property and staging cyberattacks, and to tackle the “evil Chinese influence”. The tripartite alliance between the US, Britain and Australia further targets China with the submarine deal whose aim was summed up by French Finance and Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire with “the US has one obsession, which is to contain the surge of China’s power” and corroborated by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who commented on Macron’s reaction with “Donnez-moi un break” (give me a break).

The issue of the French submarines, Australia’s decision to cancel the$56 billion deal which led France to recall her ambassadors to Canberra and Washington for consultation, Switzerland’s decision to cancel the purchase of French jetfighters Dasseault Rafale worth over $5 billion for US F35 jetfighters instead, and the Romanian government’s decision to reconsider a similar deal worth €1.2 billion to build four French Gowind corvettes, was the culmination and result of America’s arrangements for the current century, and of the turbulent relationship between France and America, which the latter will add to her ammunition used in the battle to dismantle the deep state in France and harness it against Macron in the presidential election of spring 2022. The tripartite alliance and the cancelling of the arms deals with Australia and Switzerland have dealt France a heavy blow, and made her rush towards India lest the latter should withdraw from an earmarked deal to purchase Rafale Dassault jetfighters. They have also shaken her diplomatic abilities and her continental and international weight which may destabilize her and have an impact on her endeavours to form a European force independent of NATO. Boris Johnson taunted Macron following France’s misfortune and addressed him from outside US Capitol with “get a grip”.

The extent of the pain that France has suffered was reflected in the reactions of the French leaders; French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told Radio France Info “it is indeed a stab in the back”, and that he was “infuriated” and “very bitter” adding “we established a relationship based on trust with Australia, and this trust has been betrayed… the Europeans decided three days ago to adopt a strategy specific to them in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.” He also said his country was in the process of reassessing her standpoint vis-à-vis her allies within the context of responding to the strategic alliance between the US, Britain and Australia.” He told Channel France2 “the issue of the submarines is a serious crisis that will affect the future of NATO”, and he accused Australia and the US of lying and Britain of persistent opportunism.

The reason behind America’s targeting of France is the latter’s assiduous endeavour to ratify the agreements on deepening European political integration and security independence based on the principle of “we are with America, but we are independent”. France has also been targeted because of her bitter resentment towards the Anglo-Saxon fiscal system which was exasperated by the 2008 financial markets collapse, and because she is a nuclear power who unlike Britain, has maintained independence of the French nuclear deterrent and arms industry and was never fully integrated with NATO despite her membership. She withdrew from NATO’s operational aspect since the days of De Gaulle and has never partaken in the projects of military cooperation and collaborative industries as Britain has. And this is what infuriated America and led her to persistently call for an increase in NATO’s military spending in the face of France’s attempts to wriggle out of it. Moreover, France has been targeted because Macron has been attempting to intervene to solve the issue of the short and medium-range missiles treaty, persuade EU member states to establish a European military force, restore the relationship with Russia and dissipate the state of uncertainty America is instigating to corroborate NATO’s role and control of European security.

Hence, America has been working directly and through her agents to sow despair in France, dwarf her and sweep her back to the French inland. this explains why Macron has been attempting to conceal his failure and compensate for it by launching an onslaught on Islam with the aim of mobilising the Europeans behind him and by taking precautionary measure domestically through evoking the fears of French citizens from the threat of Islam on their identity.

This shock and its fallout has unnerved France and made her lose her composure which lead her leaders to seek a solution to the crisis that has damaged her diplomatic and political existence and her international image. She could either pursue her hybrid approach of “we are with you but we are independent” and move towards bolstering her relationship with Russia and China, which a large number of EU member states are averse to as it weakens the EU further, or opt for full integration under the umbrella of the EU, thus evaporating any independence she has left due to the method of European decision making which necessitates political consensus in security and political matters and exactly what the US wants.

Finally, this event confirms yet again that the capitalist West is divided, even though they are united in their war against Islam and the Muslims, because the capitalist doctrine they embrace promotes individualism and egoism, and only recognises the criterion of materialist expediency and interest. This makes Islam the only viable ideology to guide human life and makes the Islamic Ummah the sole, fair and just leader to govern people’s affairs and safeguard their interests.

17 Safar 1443h
24 September 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Alleged Attempted Coup in Sudan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Alleged Attempted Coup in Sudan

Official Sudanese media outlets announced this morning, Tuesday 21 September 2021, “a failed coup attempt in Sudan”. Official spokesperson of the Sovereignty Council of Sudan Mohamed Al Faki Suleiman posted a statement on Facebook in which he wrote “Rise in defence of your country and to protect the transition.” Almost an hour later he also wrote “Things are under control and the revolution is victorious”, in a bid to dupe the masses into believing that the alleged coup was directed against the volition of the masses.

Following a joint meeting between the collaborating Freedom and Change Forces (FFC) with the Sudanese cabinet, Sudanese information minister Hamza Baloul said “the attempted coup was designed to turn the clock back. Military and civilian putschists have been apprehended. They are from among the officers loyal to the former regime.” Meanwhile, the Sudanese army announced that “a failed attempted coup has been brought under control.”

Sudanese Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok for his part said an “urgent real decision will be issued to immunise the transition” stressing “the current partnership must be consolidated.” He added that “a special committee will issue a swift decision to dismantle the 30 June system”, meaning the dismantling of the “Empowerment” state that epitomised the “dissolved Islamic system” of Omar al-Bashir.

By scrutinising the official statements and the news whose sources are monopolised by the state, and through the analysis of the farcical circumstances such as rumours circulating of an “imminent coup” before it happened, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged coup attempt, especially the conditions witnessed by the capital and other cities during the past few months with sit-ins and protests against the deteriorating economic situation, increase in fuel prices and foodstuffs, plundering of public funds, lack of security and discontent within the ranks of the military necessitating a pre-emptive purge of the security and military institutions along with some political forces opposing the regime, it has transpired from all this that the alleged attempted coup, of which the government was aware beforehand but did not undertake adequate measures nor any preemptive action to prevent its flaccid initiation, was but a political ploy in which some elements were duped into carrying out by the presidential council, with both its military and political wings which engineered it in order to effectuate the outputs of the transitional period which will expire in two months, i.e., in November of this year. This narrative was corroborated two days ago by the statement of Mohammed al-Faki Suleiman who said “the transitional period has become threatened by the increased activities of the remnants of the dissolved party from within and without the state.”

Perhaps the most precarious aspect of what has been agreed upon between the political and military forces, who are also seeking to entrench themselves, is federalising the state and officially establishing the system and society on the secularist doctrine. Since the toppling of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan has been heading towards federal fragmentation and decentralised governance which was stipulated by the agreement between the government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) headed by Abdulaziz al Helou. The agreement literally and constitutionally institutes a secularist federal state and calls for merging the rebel movements and “unifying” the armed forces, now that the Sovereignty Council has conspired to turn the various sections of the armed forces into militias and terrorise the masses by turning Khartoum and Darfur into military barracks swarming with armed movements which have succeeded in imposing the secularity of the state in the constitution. Consequently, the state and its system will be restructured once the political construct attributed to Islam under the leadership of Omar al-Bashir has been exhausted under the weight of insecurity and economic decline, the army and security forces have been purged of those loyal to the former regime and the resentment of the masses has been vented through guided uprisings and delusionary victories.

This alleged attempted coup will undoubtedly help the government to achieve its aims on designing and restructuring the regime such as ending “fragmentation” within the military which Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok warned of previously when he said “the military fragmentation within the military institution is very worrying” and USAID’s Samantha Power stating during her visit to Khartoum in August that “The United States agrees that Sudan’s army should have a single, unified command, and we will actively support civilian-led security reform and the formal integration of the Rapid Support Forces and former opposition armed groups.” All this was for the sake of unifying the standpoints towards the outputs that Sudan has sustained due to the American dictates imposed through the constitutional document, and through the agreement on the Declaration of Principles between the transitional period government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement – North (SPLM–N); the agreement was overseen by former US Congressperson and the executive director of the UN World Food Programme, David Beasley, and designed to corroborate that Sudan was a civil federal state built on a federal system of governance.

Other aims include documenting the security, political and military partnership, portraying the army as the guarantor of the aims of the “revolution”, circumventing the popular protests and driving people to despair and dissuading them of seeking change, exactly as in the countries of the “Arab Spring”, which is the most precarious predicament for the people of the region.

Therefore, this alleged coup attempt in Sudan, the drive to hold elections in Libya before the end of the year, containing the popular dynamism in Algeria through rigged presidential elections, turning a blind eye to the Syrian regime’s terrorism, the iron fist of al-Sisi in Egypt and empowering the Houthi in Yemen, indicates that America wants to entrench what has already been accomplished in reshaping the Middle East, ending the option of “Islamists” in government and dwarfing their roles, securing her new agents, protecting the secularist identity of the state, the government of normalisation and alliance under the leadership of Abdullah Hamdok and the army against any popular disgruntlement which may lead to impeding the restructuring of the regime and the relationship with "Israel”.

This is corroborated by Middle East Media Research Institute which recommended the American administration speed up its backing of the Sudanese regime to avert a popular uprising, and advised to instruct Saudi and the UAE to help the regime of Burhan and Hamdok, considering that preserving it was an American priority that necessitated halting the polarisation of Sudanese leaders by regional powers.

This leads us to reemphasise that the fate of the Ummah is dependent on her acquiring political awareness, arming herself with the Aqeedah, adhering to the rules of Allah the Almighty, being wary of His enemies and their plotting and deceiving ploys, rallying around the sincere leaderships, shunning every initiative that does not call for resuming the Islamic way of life and establishing the State with Shari'ah reigning supreme under the authority of the Ummah, and only moving to deal the Kufr systems and collaborators, and the influence of their masters who colonise the Muslims’ lands, a heavy blow.
 

“Victory comes only from Allah.” [al-Anfal-10]

14 Safar 1443h
21 September 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Syrian Regime’s Attack on Daraa 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Backdrop to Syrian Regime’s Attack on Daraa al-Balad

The ordeal of the oppressed people in Syria continues unabated. It is the largest and fiercest since the hoax of the Arab Spring in which the enemies of the Ummah invested in a cauldron in which the blood of Muslims has been boiling, and exploited the aspirations of Muslims to break free from the shackles of the oppressive regimes and attain a future in which Islam would reign supreme as it did in the past, revived them and placed them as leaders over all other nations.

Despite the agreement concluded between representatives of Daraa’s residents and the criminal regime of Bashar Assad at the beginning of the month which followed a siege of over two months, stipulating ending the barbaric shelling of the city, lifting the siege imposed on it and settling the security situation of its residents who took part in the “revolution” against the regime, the international understandings and regional conspiracies that whet the appetite of Syrian regime to kill, betray, shed blood and exact revenge on the people of Daraa who refused to partake in the recent presidential elections, have encouraged the regime to renew its shelling of the city and impose humiliating new conditions on its residents and opposition forces.

Those conditions stipulate handing over all personal light weapons in the city and allowing the regime to set up nine security checkpoints instead of four, in addition to carrying out house searches, handing over or deporting those wanted by the regime, in preparation for controlling the city following the hoax of the Astana de-escalation agreement of 2017. This prompted some tribal leaders to seek the help of the king of Jordan who returned from his US visit with the file of marketing and rehabilitating the Syrian regime and resuming economic ties with it in preparation for endorsing the Syrian situation within a federal framework akin to the Iraqi regime. The visit of the Jordanian monarch, and Egyptian officials to Moscow, falls within this context, especially as the file of rehabilitating the Syrian regime is linked to the course of events in the entire region, including bringing the ruling crisis in Lebanon out of the bottleneck and appointing as prime minister, with the blessing of America and France, Najib Mikati who will be politically and economically backed by the Gulf States, and shoring up the Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi through the Baghdad summit attended by French President Emmanuel Macron, the king of Jordan and senior officials of neighbouring countries and Iran, whose political approach under the current situation allows the presence of an Iraqi Prime Minister from outside of the milieu conspiring with her.

The rehabilitation of the Syrian regime, which was on the brink of collapsing before the Russian and Iranian intervention with the blessing of America, falls within the context of the regional solution and the endeavours to clip Iran’s wings now that her role has been served in the previous phase, all of which is linked to reshaping the Middle East and liquidating the Palestinian issue.

The vision of the Biden administration is built on what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mentioned during a Senate Committee hearing, and what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated during a debate with his predecessor Robert O'Brien, which stipulates the necessity of harnessing any peace agreement in serving America’s interests in the first instance and protecting the usurping entity, considering that it has been acting as America’s shadow and tool in the region, through establishing a diplomatic, economic and security mergence, and an "Israeli" superiority within the framework of a regional solution which would remove the obstacles between the Arab states and "Israel", and prevent the region, positioned on the peripheries of the interests of the West and America in particular, from erupting. This necessitated discarding Netanyahu, weakening and taming the Zionist rightwing, clipping Iran’s wings and finding a solution to Russian and Turkish presence in Syria in line with the new American administration’s approach whose wing within the deep state is stronger.

In this context, the onslaught of the criminal Syrian regime on the people of Daraa aims at disarming the opposition forces, voiding the area bordering "Israel" of the “resistance” and taming and disheartening its people within the framework of executing the security arrangement for Syria’s southern borders with Jordan, and preparing the grounds for kick-starting the delusional peace process. Moreover, and in the same context, plans are afoot to reshape "Israeli" public opinion in the wake of the recent war on Gaza and the toppling of Netanyahu, and induce the new rightwing government headed by Naftali Bennet to be less rigid in the negotiations with the Palestinians who are reshuffling their domestic pack to accommodate the new developments and the forthcoming phase.

As for the American standpoint, it was reflected by king Abdullah’s endeavour to vulgarise the regime of Bashar Assad and his let-down of the people of Daraa who had turned to him for help and pleaded with him to open the border for them to flee the barrel bombs of the criminals. It was also expressed by the US decision to abandon her support for the fighting groups of the south, instruct Jordan and the Gulf States to refrain from sponsoring them, and shut down the Military Operations Centre (MOC) she had established in Jordan to support the Syrian opposition in the south. America has also blessed the de-escalation agreement and the ceasefire that included disarming the opposition forces of their heavy and medium weapons and evacuating the fighters and civilians, rejecting their settlement to northwest Syria.

Moreover, the American standpoint was also reflected in the statements of Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Joey Hood, who told Aljazeera “We do not seek to change the Assad regime, but rather to change the behaviour of his government”, stressing that Washington supported a political process under the auspices of the UN to form a government representing the Syrian people. Hence, America confirmed her real standpoint on the Syrian regime, her U-turn on toppling of the criminal Bashar Assad and his clique, and her collusion with Russia and Iran to slaughter the masses in Syria to secure her interests of fragmenting and weakening Syria and safeguarding the Zionist entity, within the previously agreed understandings between Russia, America and "Israel" which would allow the Syrian regime to restore its dominance over the southern region bordering Jordan and the southwestern region bordering "Israel". Former US President Donald Trump expressed this endeavour by stating that his country was ready to work with Russia and "Israel" to guarantee the safety of "Israel". Furthermore, America has a host of immediate interests on voiding the Middle East region of the Islamic culture, reshaping the awareness of Muslims on secular grounds and backing the eradicationalist liberal forces, in addition to her long-term economic interests reflected in dominating the energy supply routes to Europe, and securing electricity and gas supplies from Egypt to Lebanon via Jordan and Daraa to preserve the Lebanese status quo and prevent its total collapse, and to support her agents in the new government, hence the meeting of Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese energy ministers in Amman.

5 Safar 1443h
12 September 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - European Security Apprehensions Following US Withdrawal from Afghanistan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - European Security Apprehensions Following US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

The events of Afghanistan last week gatecrashed the EU defence ministers’ informal meeting. These events evoked the issue of the European rapid reaction force, which, despite being agreed upon in 2018 and endorsed by NATO in a formula separate from the traditional European defence cooperation in order to accommodate Britain, who had always been averse to establishing a force parallel to NATO, it still lacking the mechanisms of activation which require the consensus of the member states’ leaders, most of whom receive their instructions from the US, such as those Biden met during his last European tour, who blocked Macron’s attempts to build closer relations between the EU and Russia and thwarted Putin’s request to attend a EU summit. Moreover, Italy, Poland, and Denmark have been instrumental in impeding France’s attempts to destabilise or influence the centrality of NATO in European defence and security.

Hence, the US has harnessed the events of Afghanistan and drawn upon the scarecrow of the so-called “terrorism” and illegal migration to corroborate Europe’s impotence and deepen her dependence on the American clout. This was forthrightly expressed by Slovenia’s defence minister who said the setback in Afghanistan had highlighted the EU’s dependence on the US. His statement was seconded by German defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer who said the Europeans were unable to oppose the American decision to withdraw from Afghanistan because they lacked the ability to do so.

For his part, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell told a press conference following the meeting in Slovenia, “Afghanistan has shown that the deficiencies in our strategic autonomy come with a price and that the only way forward is to combine our forces and strengthen not only our capacity, but also our will to act.” He added, “If we want to be able to act autonomously and not to be dependent on the choices made by others – even if these others are our friends and allies - then we have to develop our own capacities.”

This proves that Europe shares with China and Russia the same fears America left them with through her withdrawal from Afghanistan, namely the threat of what they describe as “Islamic terrorism”. It is true the Taliban Movement does not constitute a force that could threaten powers such as China, Russia, and Europe, but it could be recruited once again to act as an incubator and a factory for those they describe as “terrorists", whose operations rattled the cage of the European masses, and were projected as security challenge to their societies and governments, and a threat to their interests, not to mention the threat posed by the presence of an entity embracing a system contradicting international systems, with values different to theirs, and a political model stimulating an Ummah with a message who is yearning to return to her religion in its pure form, independent state, glories, and civilisational heritage. Such a threat represents on the one hand a source of anxiety to the Western world and its civilisation, and an incentive to Western masses to cling to the capitalist systems and lifestyle whose glitter is virtually dissipating, a state of affairs which has been bothersome to Western politicians and intellectuals, and to which the President of the European Council Charles Michel referred on social media by stating that, “the EU and its member states should have a greater weight in the world to defend our interests and values and to protect our citizens.” A senior EU official also stated, “what is in our mind is being able to deploy a rapid intervention force in the event of having for instance a legitimate government in some country, which we fear it would be dominated by a terrorist group.”

However, the European standpoints vis-à-vis the rapid reaction force are but loud wailing and an attempt to save face following the heavy blow Europe has been dealt and after the inability to protect her overseas civil servants has been exposed, while the Americans boasted about having carried out the largest and quickest evacuation operation in the world. Therefore, former President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker commented on the defence cooperation agreement as he urged member states to ratify it, “When France intervenes in Mali, it is European honour they are saving.” The notion of establishing a European rapid reaction force has been unachievable since the beginning of the 1990s, not to mention the “tactical groupings” system of 2007, because the EU has been designed for economic integration rather than political and military union, in order to keep it dependent on the US and under her influence and dominion.

Germany has perceived this reality and decided to proceed in America’s orbit to secure her interests. German defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer set the record straight regarding the notion of activating the European force by saying, “we have to become more independent as Europeans and be able to move more independently. But it is very important that we not act as a substitute for NATO and the Americans."

France was not too far from the German standpoint due to the rivalry between Paris and Berlin despite Macron’s attempts to break free from NATO’s shackles. The initiative of a European force emanates fundamentally from the attempts of French President Emmanuel Macron to turn Paris into a centre for European foreign and security policy, buoyed by the French nuclear deterrent, which EU member states no longer enjoy now that Britain has left the Union, and by Germany’s lack of this deterrent. Germany for her part is attempting to fill the leadership vacuum with the economic clout and political weight she enjoys among EU member states and within European institutions. Macron called for “consolidating European defence cooperation and establishing a cooperation between the armies of the European states that are willing and capable.” This is also what French defence minister Florence Parly expressed by saying, “the Europeans have to be strong and more capable of defending themselves and their sovereignty… Europe is capable of defending her own security.” And in order to thwart the pretexts of the European states averse to establishing a European force parallel to NATO, the French minister said, “France considers the European force as ‘complementary’ to NATO” and “would not affect it”.

As for the US standpoint, it was expressed by State Department Spokesperson Ned Price who told a press briefing, “we continue to believe that a stronger, more capable Europe is in our shared interests…. Given the overlapping transatlantic challenges, we won’t succeed without enhanced NATO-EU cooperation. And that’s something that we continue to strongly support. When the democracies that make up NATO, when the democracies that make up the EU stick together, they constitute a tremendous force for a stable and open international order.” His statement was designed to corroborate the “strategic partnership”, which in fact is the codename for affiliation, and the centrality of NATO in European defence and security.

It is worth noting in this context that the US has engineered her strategy abroad in a manner allowing her to recycle the outputs and feedbacks of her policies and harness them in achieving her aims and serving her interests, just like she did when she involved Turkey and Russia in the Syrian file, and when she involved them together with France in the Libyan file.

Establishing a European force lacking the effectiveness equal to the American power will only lead to confirming Europe’s impotence and decrepitude, and at best, it will shore up the backseat leadership pursued by the Biden administration, and free further American resources, which could be directed towards what is viewed as concerns pertinent to US national security in areas being currently animated in the world, such as the axis of dealing with China, the Middle East, and the Horn of Africa.

This European impotence was acknowledged by the NATO member states who relied on the US air force and logistical services for the two decades they spent in Afghanistan; and then they were forced to withdraw as well. This was expressed by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell who told the New York Times, “But in the end, the timing and nature of the withdrawal were set in Washington. We Europeans found ourselves — not only for the evacuations out of the Kabul airport but also more broadly — depending on American decisions.”

What is evident in the unfolding events is that America is reminding the Europeans, through the events she fabricates, of their impotence and warning them against stepping out of line or seeking their interests in isolation of her volition, especially that the European initiatives always come under the threats and the uncertainties which America consecrates in respect of European security.

Moreover, the increased Russian interventions and Chinese ambitions in eastern Europe and Africa, coupled with America’s decision to reduce the number of US troops in Europe, withdraw from the intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles agreement, and back Britain’s exit from the EU, all this has led America to corroborate NATO’s role and compel the European states to fulfil their commitment with the minimum defence expenditure of 2% of their GDP.

The Islamic Ummah’s awareness of world politics and the plotting of colonialist powers and her scrutinising of her leaderships and domestic forces, coupled with the Muslims’ standpoints vis-à-vis the events being referred to their Shari'ah, all this will be the definite guarantee to avoid the traps and avert the setbacks visiting them and their lands. If the Taliban Movement’s accession to power in Afghanistan has set the alarm bells ringing in Europe, China, and Russia and led them to take precautionary measures to protect their interests, the more reason the Ummah should bulwark her domestic front through awareness and doctrinism and avoid being overwhelmed by a guided emotion designed to exploit her children as fuel for battles that do not concern them. Following the bomb attacks attributed to ISIS, aka Daesh, in Kabul, which provided America and the Taliban with the pretext to cooperate between them, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley announced that “it's possible the United States will seek to coordinate with the Taliban on counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan against Islamic State militants or others.” Hence, the Muslims should be wary of what the media, ignoramus, and spies propagate, lest the rivers of blood the West headed by America have burst in the Muslims’ lands should continue to flow.

“And expose the path of the unrighteous.” [al-Ana’am-55]

29 Muharram 1443h

6 September 2021

Political Observation - Yemen: Roadmap to Division 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Yemen: Roadmap to Division

The United Nations announced on 6 August the appointment of Swedish diplomat Hans Grundberg as its new envoy to Yemen. This coincided with a shift in the military standpoint of the Houthis from defence to attack on several frontlines, knowing that they had initially rejected the appointment of Grundberg as US representative, only to have a change of heart later and accept the appointment later on the condition that he would have to start from where Griffith had left off. What is remarkable is that the appointment of the UN envoy coincided with leaks about a roadmap, attributed to “Legitimacy”, for Yemen which evoked the apprehensions of some officials, especially the Shurah Council Chairperson Ahmed Obaid bin Dagher who emerged warning against impinging on the legitimacy of President Hadi and tweeted that “Legitimacy is not the obstacle in the face of achieving peace”, and thus exposed what had been occurring behind the scenes such as the attempt to transfer the competencies of President Hadi to an agreed-upon Vice-President or to form a presidential council in which all the stakeholders would take part with the aim of generating an appropriate ground for dialogue between the Yemeni political constituents and the Iran-backed Houthis. This was confirmed by former Yemeni foreign minister Dr Abu Bakr al-Qirbi who pointed out that “the international community is seeking to solve the Yemeni crisis by transferring power to a new consensual vice-president, or by establishing a presidential council.” It was also exposed by the head of the Juhod Studies Centre, Abdul Sattar al-Shamiri, who referred to an extensive debate taking place in the Sultanate of Oman on a draft agreement to end the war in Yemen consisting of 21 articles, devised by the US State Department and the new UN envoy.

However, the Houthis, who have been stationed for several months on the outskirts of Marib, the last stronghold of “Legitimacy” in northern Yemen, have no political or economic interest in giving up all those gains and handing them over to a presidential council or a consensual vice-president, without having the upper hand and the last word. They realise that the Western standpoints are built on the fait accompli policy, as long as it fulfils their interests. Observers of the unfolding events in the Islamic lands realise the collusion of the regimes and rulers in favour of the Kafir colonialist, incarnated by the US, in perpetuating the proxy wars which divert Muslims away from their issues and only serve Western powers who control their outputs.

It is evident that U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking adopted the eight-article Gulf initiative handed to him during his first visit to the region in February 2021 as a benchmark for completing the American plan to divide Yemen under the theme of ending the struggle through a permanent political solution and providing humanitarian aid to the Yemeni people. This trend is corroborated by the Shurah Council Chairperson, Ahmed Obaid bin Dagher, who commented on the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) initiative by endorsing the “adoption of the project of the overwhelming majority of the Yemeni people, and I mean the project of the federal state… with an objective tackling of the southern issue.”

In fact, dividing Yemen in some form of a confederation is not a new occurrence. The proposed endorsement of four provinces, which would be granted all the competencies akin to self-rule, provided that the north is divided into two provinces, one for the Houthis with its borders stretching to the governorate of Ibb south of Sanaa, and the second to the forces representing the Legitimacy camp stretching over the remaining lands of the north, including al-Hudaydah. As for the south, it would consist of two provinces which would be granted full competencies until a referendum is held on the final status of south Yemen under the auspices of the UN by the beginning of the fifth year from the date of the agreement coming into force. However, the most important point in the leak is pertinent to the international guarantees for Yemen’s security through deploying international peacekeeping forces in 17 Yemeni regions including al-Hudaydah which reflects colonialist dimensions in military form and consequently leads to thwart any move to future unity.

The omens of this high treason are reflected in the corroboration of foreign minister Ahmed Awad bin Mubarak during his virtual meeting with Dutch ambassador Peter Derrek Hof, which stipulated “the government’s eagerness to achieve sustainable peace and reach a political settlement based on the three nationally and internationally agreed upon baselines.” The baselines in question are the Gulf initiative of 2011, the upshots of the National Dialogue Conference of 2011-2013 and the UN Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 2216 which compels the Houthis to surrender the areas under their control and hand over their weapons.

In an attempt to link the Yemeni issue to the geopolitical agenda of Bab al-Mandab and the conflagrant Horn of Africa, which is linked to international navigation security, UN representative of Legitimacy Abdullah al-Saadi mentioned in his statement to the Security Council during an open debate on Yemen that “the Houthis’ using of the city of al-Hudaydah and its seaports to equip and launch boobytrapped boats, plant naval mines and practise piracy, poses a threat to regional and international peace and security; it is also an unprecedented targeting of international maritime routes, commercial activity, and international energy security in one of the most important maritime shipping routes in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait.”

As for the standpoint of Iran and al-Houthi, the new Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, sent a message to Washington and Riyadh by making the proceedings of his telephone conversation with Iraqi prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi public during which the latter invited him to partake in the summit of Iraq’s neighbouring countries; Raisi said “everyone should endeavour to end the war in Yemen and respect the right of the Yemeni people to self-determination” adding that, “the countries of the region are capable of devising and implementing a roadmap towards achieving permanent peace, security and stability through cooperation between them.” He stressed that “Iraq’s neighbouring countries' summit will culminate in national and regional results highlighting Iraq’s strength and its effective role in the region, and the ability of the countries of the region to solve their own problems.” This denotes the wishes of President Raisi to adapt to the Biden administration and the new developments of American policies and take Iran back to her functional square that supports American initiatives, and thus, relieving America of the burden of overseeing the region directly. This falls under the Iranian and Saudi endeavours to settle their differences and tackle the Yemeni crisis and the Iraqi elections through the rounds of talks between the Iranian and Saudi sides in the Iraqi capital.

The omens of a positive response from the Houthis are reflected in the insinuations of Hussein al-Izzi, deputy foreign minister in the “Houthi government”, who told the London-based media outlet, The New Arab, that “Sanaa and Riyadh could reach an agreement on peace, security and good neighbourly relations”, adding in reference to the Legitimacy that “if the two capitals decided this, the mercenaries would not form an obstacle because the interests of the two brotherly peoples are far greater than the narrow interests of those elements.” All this has been unfolding amid a rapprochement and a host of agreements between Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi which were reflected in the meeting between bin Salman and the Qatari foreign minister who conveyed to him a written letter from Sheikh Tamim. They were also reflected in the press release of the Saudi news agency stating that bin Salman had sent a written letter to the emir of Kuwait, Mashal al-Ahmed. This was designed to curb the Emirati drive towards escalating the situation, leapfrogging the stages and speeding the secession of the south. This drive was reflected in the tweet by Deputy Chairman of Police and General Security in Dubai Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim in which he said that “there is an international consensus on the return of the state of south Yemen with Aden as its capital.” It has also been unfolding amid the activities undertaken by Abu Dhabi to gather the remnants of the General People's Congress, which is the party of Ali Abdullah Saleh, in an attempt to generate a consensual compromise within the various trends that cropped up inside the party.

These movements and visits have by and large coincided with the statement of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who told the UN Security Council’s session currently held in New York on the developments of the Yemeni crisis that, “all parties to the Riyadh Agreement to redouble efforts aimed at implementation and return the Yemeni government to Aden, so it can restore basic services and take steps to improve economic stability.”

18 Muharram 1443h
27 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Open Letter to Taliban’s Leaders, Operatives & Afghan People 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Open Letter to the Taliban’s Leaders and Operatives, and Afghan People

Dear Noble Brothers

Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu, as for what is to follow:

The issue of Muslims is not seizing power but rather building a state; and building the state would be by gathering the Ummah around the Islamic idea, and making her proceed in life according to this idea. Then power would be taken and established based on this idea. The state is an executive entity for the host of concepts, criteria and convictions embraced by the Ummah that represent her viewpoint in life. In other words, the state is an entity built upon an idea that is embraced by the Ummah which is prepared to sacrifice for its sake. Hence, seizing power does not mean establishing a state. The state requires the authority to be built upon an idea embraced by the Ummah. What generates revival is establishing the authority upon the Islamic idea, i.e., the Islamic Aqeedah. Hence, what generates revival is establishing the state on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Establishing it on the Hanafi school of thought, the book of al-Tahawi or the Shari'ah rules does not generate any revival whatsoever because these would be taken as systems and laws and as a result, they could never occasion any revival. The State should rather be established on “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”, then the Shari'ah rules would be taken in their quality as commands and prohibitions from Allah , and thus they would be implemented because they are the order of Allah and since they would be obtained from “There is no god but Allah, Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah”. Only then revival would take place.

We are saying this so that we may perceive the reality and in what situation we should be.

Dear Noble Brothers

The existence of a Muslim in this life is for the sake of Islam and his work in life is carrying the Islamic Da’awah. The function of the Islamic State is implementing Islam and executing its rules domestically and carrying the Da’awah to the world, the method of which is Jihad, which is shouldered by the State. The Muslim lives for Islam, sacrifices for its sake, carries the Da’awah to elevate its standing, establishes the State to implement it and performs Jihad for the sake of Allah to spread it. Allah has made us Muslims and bestowed upon us the honour of embracing the magnificent Islam: He sent unto us a Messenger from among ourselves to convey unto us the ayat of Allah, cause us to grow in purity and to impart unto us the Book and wisdom so that we may bear witness to the truth before humankind by implementing Islam on them domestically and carrying it as message to the world at large to share the guidance with them rather than exterminate them.

The Muslims have been, without a shadow of a doubt since the dawn of Islam’s history, involved in a momentous Jihad. The work for the sake of Islam started on the intellectual and political path, while averting bloody frictions as much as possible and refraining from armed conflict with the Kuffar to persuade them to embrace this Deen and establish its Deen. Then, when Islam became a force to be reckoned with and its State was established, it caried the Da’awah on the political and military path simultaneously. The Muslims gave their lives for the sake of this message and sacrificed all that is dear and precious, until the Islamic State became the sun of the blossoming world and the undisputed superpower. Then the Kuffar succeeded in dealing the Islamic fraternity among the Muslims a heavy blow, dismantled their lands and destroyed their State. Hence, the Muslims became more unfortunate than the orphans seated at the table of the avaricious master. And you have suffered like the rest of the Muslims in all the Muslims’ lands from the humiliation of colonialism and the tyranny of the colonialists and their surrogates with the resulting bloodshed and the suffering caused by the three colonialist campaigns on Afghanistan, British, Soviet and American, during which millions of our brethren were killed, banished, imprisoned and tortured to serve the interests of the Kuffar.

Dear Noble Brothers

Allah revealed the noble Qur’an to be put into implementation. He is the Judge, and He is the Commander and Prohibitor. He issues the rules on actions and things. Hence, sovereignty belong to Him alone. Allah conferred the authority to the Ummah who elects from among her children a ruler to implement the Shari'ah of Allah . Hence, this ruler derives his legitimacy from Islam by implementing its rules and from the Ummah who elects him.

Hence, it is forbidden for the Ummah of Islam to lack at any time an authority, and to be ruled by other than the Shari'ah of her Lord. We are aware that you did apply Islam in Afghanistan during your first dominion over the country before the America invasion which toppled your authority and abolished your Imarah. We are urging you to establish your authority in Afghanistan in its quality as a part of the Muslims’ lands rather than in its patriotic and nationalistic quality, and to resume what you have started in terms of implementing Islam on the Muslims. This is the weighty trust for which you are responsible, and Allah will hold you accountable for what you have been entrusted with when you stand before Him.

We are also aware that you have negotiated with the Americans to arrange their exit from Afghanistan and hand the reins of power over to you; this was clear from America’s decision to let the collaborating regime meet its fate and not to support it, and to let you seize one wilaya after another and one directorate after another, without interfering despite their ability to prevent you from doing so. This indicated that it was part of the agreement pertinent to the Americans’ exit from your country.

Hence, we remind you of America’s broken promises after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union 32 years ago. The Americans never keep their promises and their covenants, and we believe you are aware of how America toyed with the mujahideen after the withdrawal of the Soviet occupier from your country and how she sowed the seeds of hatred amongst them, fuelling warlike discord amongst them severely, thus which plunged Afghanistan into a devastating civil war between the brothers in arms and in Deen. You are also aware of what America did to the Muslims in Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Egypt, and how she broke her oath with them, and even with her own agents who were also exhausted in service of her multinationals first, then in service of her surrogates who participated in the invasion and the war, and then those who colluded with her from among the traitorous rulers or those aspiring to seize power; and the masses in those countries had nothing left but starvation and death.

The insightfulness, seriousness and doctrinism of the believer make it inevitable for him to be wary of the hidden political forces that impede any substantial change that do not conform to America’s interests, explore the reality of foreign powers and their interests in Afghanistan and establish the outlines and boundaries of how to deal with them.

Dear Noble Brothers

You should purify your ranks, unify your forces, reconcile with your people and derive your support from them, and unleash their energies to build the State and proceed with it in the path of revival. After two decades of occupation, America has dismantled the masses, sowed the seeds of division amongst them and planted spies within their ranks who are attempting to flee with the occupiers to safe havens; and there are undoubtedly others who still embrace the occupier’s thoughts and agenda, be it within the ranks of the civilians or the military personnel, commanders and soldiers alike. Hence, you ought to be wary and cautious and purify the ranks from the traitors and collaborators. You have to beware of them, lest they should creep into positions of leadership. The experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should serve as a parable and a lesson to you, lest you should incline towards those who feign their love for Islam whereas in fact, they continue to serve America and embrace her culture.

Dear Noble Brothers

The objective of Jihad is to remove the physical obstacles impeding the carrying of the message. It is not just killing and fighting for the sake of fighting. Hence, military power is a trust for carrying the message, not a sword brandished in the face of the country and the masses. Military power does not give the right to use it except withing the boundaries of the Shari'ah rule. The military culture emanating from the Islamic Aqeedah is the only way to secure and immunise the military forces against any manipulation, tampering and shady understandings or deals with foreign political forces, especially America.

While we warn you against having a relationship with America, we are not however saying you should live in a secluded fortress; it is inevitable for the Islamic State to live within this world and to connect with it with positive relations dictated by the logic of human life and the mission of carrying the message, which necessitates interacting with other nations and contacting states and peoples to convey Islam and secure life’s needs. Hence, you should conduct your relationship with other states and peoples according to the logic of conveying the message and in a manner serving the interest of the Ummah while repelling all the perils that may harm her, remaining vigilant and aware of the plots and styles concocted by the covetous powers in your country and maintaining a political insight with regards to the munafiqeen and the covert and overt collaborating mercenaries.

The Afghan people are Muslims. They love Allah and His Messenger. They are warriors and fighters. They faced the Russians and the Americans and fared well in defending their country. They are formidable ammunition for any side aspiring to rule Afghanistan with Islam. Hence, all you need to do is concentrate the idea of Islam within this people so that they may live by it and it may live through them. You should work towards injecting society with the Islamic concepts, criteria and convictions so that they may guide people’s behaviours. You should focus on the concept of Islamic fraternity and that Muslims, with all their ethnicities, tribal affiliations and sects are but one single Ummah to the exclusion of all other people, and that they are one hand against all others.

It is also imperative to reject the capitalist solutions to life’s problems, expose their corruption and the woes and calamities it has brought on peoples embracing capitalism. It would also be imperative to engage in a doctrinal intellectual struggle and a clear political struggle to rid the Ummah of colonialist domination, liberate her from their influence, root out their intellectual, cultural, political, economic and military presence, and close off all gaps in their faces. Meanwhile, attention should be devoted to expounding the Islamic solutions to these problems and how the individual Muslim should implement the system of Islam motivated by his piety and fear of Allah , and how the State should implement it through the masses sensing its fairness, the cooperation of the Ummah with the ruler in ordering Ma’aruf and forbidding Munkar and the authority of the State, and through the masses, political parties and forces based on the Islamic Aqeedah who hold the rulers, emirs and civil servants to account. Therefore, the Islamic political thoughts must be concentrated among the masses in a powerful manner and manifested in their conversations, debates and relationships like ripened fruits would manifest themselves.

The Ummah’s viewpoint towards life should also be unified by adopting the criterion of Kufr and Iman, and Halal and Haram. The Muslims should also be exhorted to work by Islam and for Islam. All other ethnicities external to the Taliban movement should also be encouraged to get involved in this work to fuse the various ethnic groups in the crucible of Islam, dissipating all disparities and boundaries leading to unifying society and consolidating its ranks and consequently, turning it into a popular base for the new regime. This could only occur by unifying the viewpoint towards governance and integrating the leaders and officials of other ethnicities into the governing setup under the principle of Islamic fraternity and the criterion of competence and suitability.

It is the ideological intellectual building of the Ummah on the basis of Islam in its quality as an Aqeedah and a system, which will make the Ummah proceed in obedience with contentment and reassurance. The process of building involves making the thoughts of Aqeedah, Khilafah, Jihad and Islamic fraternity prevalent in society in a manner that paralyses all other leaderships so that Islam remains the unilateral leader of the Ummah, and the group expressing the Aqeedah and willpower of the Ummah becomes the effective leader of the State and society; and in this aspect, let the children of the Aqeedah compete among themselves, irrespective of their diverse opinions and schools of thought, to attract the masses, rule them and protect their Deen and Ummah.

One of the requirements of fairness in implementation is to share out the riches and positions of responsibilities and not monopolise them, and even place others ahead of the Taliban movement, as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did as per the Hadith narrated by Muslim on the authority of Anas Ibnu Malek who said that “a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ to give him a very large flock and he gave that to him. He came to his tribe and said: O people, embrace Islam. By Allah, Muhammad donates so much as if he did not fear poverty. Anas said that the person embraced Islam for the sake of the world but later he became Muslim until Islam became dearer to him than the world and what it contains.”

Another requirement of fairness is considering everyone equal like the teeth of a comb, irrespective of their ethnicities and sects, in terms of accountability and answerability, which maintains and controls the conduct of all officials.

Dear Noble Brothers

The masses are the only safety valve which will protect the State because they are the ones who empower the authority to rule on their behalf. What turns the masses into a popular base and a natural support for the authority is the Aqeedah with its legislative system and referentiality as well as the intellectual construction of the Ummah which involves fusing her with Islam, its concepts and its rules, the most important of which are the principles of governance in Islam, namely: the sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah; authority belongs to the Ummah; one single Khalifah; adopting the rules and enacting the laws is the exclusive competency of the Khalifah. This would be the impregnable barrier and the protective shield against military coups and infiltrations of those lurking in the dark, especially those who have been planted within the military forces and the cliques who conspire with foreign embassies. Hence, it is imperative to educate the masses with the Shari'ah-based political culture to concentrate the concepts of governance and qualities of its men. It is also imperative to deter the Ummah, especially the people of influence and power, from injustice, falsehood and the rule of Kufr, in addition to exposing to the Ummah those hellbent on being hypocritical and calling them to account just like the rulers. It is also crucial to confront, weaken and isolate those who harbour the thoughts of Kufr while being wary of adulation, cajolery, diplomacy, and Machiavellianism with any Kufr thought, erroneous concept or misdemeanour from their part.

The Ummah should perceive that establishing Islamic parties to culture the Ummah in a constant manner and to expose the schemes, conspiracies and activities of the Kafir colonialists, and calling the officials and rulers to account, is a necessity dictated by Shari'ah, the straightforwardness of the path and the steadfastness on the truth. The mechanism of political answerability in a partisan manner is more effective and influential in deterring the rulers from deviation and treason. Answerability is one of the momentous cornerstones upon which the Deen of Islam is built. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “The master of martyrs on the Day of Resurrection is Hamzah and a man who stands up to a tyrannical authority, commanding good and forbidding evil and he is killed for it.” He ﷺ also said: “In the near future there will be emirs and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds is safe. But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined.” And he ﷺ also said: “The most excellent Jihad is when one speaks a true word in the presence of a tyrannical ruler.”

We stress that the role of the military and security forces is to protect the entity of the State and carry the Message rather than protecting the movement, imam, ruler or Western values and the interests of the colonialists. Such forces should not be a sword brandished in the face of the Ummah. Protecting the imams, movements and rulers is achieved automatically through protecting the State’s entity.

Hence, although security is in the hands of Allah , and it is He who sends shivers down the spine of the Kuffar and hypocrites, this is not in isolation of the universal laws that Allah has bestowed on His servants so that they may gain authority on earth. Allah granted security to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and the Sahaba and made them safe from the danger they had been enduring from the Mushrikin in Makkah; and in Medina, they used to always carry their weapons until one day they asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: “O Messenger of Allah, will a day come in which we will be safe and lay down our arms? Upon this the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: you will not persevere but a little until a man from amongst you will sit among this great crowd without sporting an iron.” Then the following ayah was revealed: “Allah has promised those of you who have attained Iman and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will cause them to accede to power on earth” [An-Nour-55]

Finally, despite the bravery of its people, Afghanistan remains weak and the Taliban movement should, as it establishes its authority in this country and if it were independent, sincere and serious about resuming the Islamic way of life, epitomise the image befitting the Islamic State, and burn the falsehood of the world’s capitalist system with the light of its Shari'ah while erasing the falsehood with which the West has maligned the system of Islam and its State to distort it through ignorant people and agents. , and endeavour to strengthen the entity of the State and protect it with a more solid Muslim entity, such as Turkey, which, although continues to rule by secularism, is a powerful independent state with which it would be conducive to merge with and work from within to turn it into a Dar al-Islam. Unifying the Muslims’ lands is a Shari'ah priority and a political and economic necessity, and an aim to which those working for Islam and Muslims should not be oblivious. If the Taliban were to do this, it would prove that its loyalty to Allah and His religion is above any other loyalty, and that it has taken a sound step in the path of liberation and revival, offering a great service to the Ummah of Islam.

“And tell them: Keep working: Allah will behold your works and so will His Messenger and the believers; and you shall be brought back to Him Who knows that which is beyond the reach of perception and that which is within the reach of perception. He will then declare to you all that you have been doing." [at-Tawbah-105]

18 Muharram 1443h
26 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Taliban: America Harnesses “Islamic Organisations” 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Clarifications on America’s Harnessing of “Islamic Organisations”

First: One of the requirements of political perception is exploring issues and events according to their circumstances, avoiding logic, and abstaining from generalisation or analogy, except by way of reminding, familiarising, elucidating, and cautioning, lest the Muslim should be stung from the same hole twice. America smoothed the path of the “Islamic” movements to accede to power or partake in it when the Arab Spring erupted amid a situation that had its own context and geopolitical scope, namely the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) which stipulated dismantling and restructuring the region. This made it inevitable for America to harness the Islamic movements to regulate the dynamism of the masses, vent their anger, and void their resentment, considering they were the more influential tools of amassing, mobilising, motivating, steering and controlling the masses during the extremely delicate process of dismantling and reproducing the regimes.

In this regard, the US harnesses the Islamic movements through either vertical infiltration i.e., leaderships, or horizontal infiltration i.e., training, establishing, and polarising, or through subjugation and exploitation. All this for the sake of containing the sides that may stray from the path and controlling the fallout of the political project, the crises, and the international, domestic, and regional tussles through investing in all the stakeholders and tinkering with all the contradictions.

Moreover, US policy is built first and foremost on interests and pragmatism, and on exploiting the circumstances and turning crises into opportunities. Although the decision-making process in America is determined by the prevailing wing within the deep state, differences therein and amidst the one single camp over strategies, priorities and styles tend to linger due to programmatical, philosophical and domestic considerations. An example of this narrative is the statement of a Taliban leader who was quoted as saying that the “agreement with America was concluded in 2018, but some American political forces opted for aggravation and conflict.” Another example is what happened at the US Senate just before the Arab Spring erupted when former prominent Republican Senator John McCain attempted to pass a bill supporting “democracy, human rights, and civil liberties” in Egypt, ahead of the parliamentary elections of November 2010 which Mubarak’s ruling party won by an overwhelming majority and the regime was accused of rigging, but Dianne Feinstein, Chairperson of the Intelligence Committee, blocked the bill. This proves that US decision makers are not always single-heartedly united, and that differences affect America’s strategies and priorities in her domestic and foreign policies.

One of the other components influencing domestic political events is the clash between the factional interests, tussle between the collaborators and plots of the rulers against their opponents such as when Abdul Fattah al-Sisi got rid of all the top brass who helped him conspire against Mohammed Morsi; he removed Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Mahmoud Hegazi, with whom he has family ties, after he had returned from the US where he partook in an antiterrorism conference with other military commanders. Al-Sisi also removed Maj. General Mohammed el-Keshki who was in charge of supporting Khalifah Haftar. Al-Sisi also personally oversaw the apprehension of General Fuad Abdul Halim, who had strong ties with the US defence secretary and CIA director, as he feared America would betray him and as he wanted to deepen its reliance on him.

By this token, the capitalist pragmatic policy turns yesterday’s friend into today’s enemy, and yesterday’s enemy into today’s friend, and does not give weight to religion except to the extent it benefits from it.

America supported Muslim Azerbaijan against Christian Armenia, and sided with the Muslims of Kosovo against the Serbs; and she has been vulgarising the plight of Uyghur Muslims in China in order to incite the Islamic world against China, exactly as she did in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, which enabled her to engender a leadership bloc within the Islamic organisations loyal to her such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Burhanuddin Rabbani and the senior Taliban operative Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was released by Pakistan at the behest of the CIA after spending over ten years in captivity following a joint Pakistani-US intelligence operation that led to his capture in 2010, and who has recently flown from Doha in the company of several Taliban leaders to Afghanistan onboard a Qatari military jet which would not have been able to leave Qatari airspace had it not been for America’s permission. The Washington Post reported that Baradar met the CIA director on 23 August in Kabul, and this could pave the way for an American recognition and thus encourage the countries of the world to recognise the government of the Taliban.

It is imperative to reiterate that America’s decision to hand the reins of power over to the Taliban falls within the context of proxy wars, backseat leadership and the Pivot to Asia policy which entails linking Central Asia to its south. It also falls within the context of the geopolitical scope of China and the Central Asian region which constitutes Russia’s Achilles’ heel. Nevertheless, rehabilitating the Taliban Movement, which was founded under the care of the Pakistani intelligence services, could have a knock-on effect on the Middle East region within the cycle of political haemorrhaging of the region and the Muslims, and within the US endeavour to direct, control and orchestrate the internationalist grudges and contradictions. This is deduced from the vigilance and precautions taken by Russia and China on their respective borders and from the standpoint of French President Macron who sounded the alarm bells from what he referred to as “Islamic terrorism”.

Second: To claim that America has been defeated and that the Taliban have won is the very thing America wants to propagate and sell to the Muslims. It would be wrong to suggest that it would not be in America’s interest to seem defeated and thus her admission of defeat must be genuine; it would be wrong to suggest this because America had achieved her declared aim of banishing the Taliban in less than four weeks when she seized the capital Kabul in November 2001. Moreover, the reality on the ground does not denote an American defeat by the Taliban since the situation does not indicate America’s inability to whitewash the Taliban. America killed more than 200 Taliban operatives during the invasion alone to remind the group of the big stick and to deter it from overstepping its function whereas the Taliban could not kill the same number of American soldiers in seven years. While the Muslims lost in Afghanistan hundreds of thousands of innocent people and mujahideen, America has lost 2443 soldiers and contractors since 2001, most of them in the early years too. After 2014, the death toll of the Americans was only 92 and in the past four years, America lost only one soldier. This is not a defeat. In fact, America has achieved a host of logistical gains since she occupied Afghanistan in terms of training, upgrading her weapons and developing new fighting techniques in addition to thwarting some significant Chinese investments since 2007 such as the Aynak Copper Mine infrastructure project. Hence, when we say America has not been defeated by the Taliban, we are describing reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. Furthermore, there are several indications corroborating the fact that the Taliban movement is an American project concocted via the Pakistani intelligence services; Admiral Mike Mullen admitted during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Taliban was a virtual arm of the Pakistani intelligence services.

Third: Despite the domestic motives behind America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan such as the 2022 mid-term elections and the Taliban’s attempt to adapt to reality, reconcile with the opponents of the Aqeedah within the framework of a participatory government without any preconditions and establish a peace which will qualify Afghanistan for a regional functional role, thanks to what she possesses in terms of geopolitical sensitivities and supply routes that would make the covetous forces salivate and lure them into the trap. The Taliban movement is also endeavouring to reconcile with the world order and exact recognition. This was expressed by Sirajuddin Haqqani a year ago during his interview with the New York Times. He said, “there is no peace agreement following intensive negotiations without mutual concessions” adding that “Afghanistan could not sustain living in isolation… a new Afghanistan will be a responsible member of the international community”. The stakeholders’ forward escape and their readiness to recognise and deal with the Taliban movement to avert the deluge is part and parcel of the series of traps laid by the US for its adversaries and for the Muslims with the aim of exploiting them for its international initiatives. Muslims are oblivious to their civilisational project and continue to consume the traps thrown at them and the resulting weeds whose harm is far greater than their good in the best of circumstances because they drive Muslims towards aberration and confusion, and sidestep the project of their real revival whose cornerstone is establishing life, the state and society on the ideology of Islam in its high-bred formula, and carrying the message of Islam to the world via Jihad. This is what the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the centrist Islamic organisations lack in the first instance, and thus, it would be wrong to rely on them in any shape or form. It is rather imperative to seek the doctrinal alternative, which does not accept anything less than a Khilafah on the method of the prophethood. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “a Muslim is never stung from the same hole twice.”

17 Muharram 1443h
25 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Political Comment - Afghanistan: Taliban Takeover  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Comment - Developments of the Situation in Afghanistan

Two decades after the barbaric military occupation of Afghanistan, the US decided to withdraw its troops and signed the unconditional withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in Doha on 29 February 2020 which stipulated the completion of this withdrawal by 1 May 2021. However, the Biden administration deferred this withdrawal until 11 September 2021 to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks which America used as a pretext to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Since 9 July 2021, and within 30 days, the Taliban has succeeded in seizing control of the three largest cities outside Kabul, namely Herat, the strategic city in the west of the country, the city of Lashkargah, the capital of the Helmand province, and the city of Kandahar, the second-largest city and stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban , which was reported to be under the control of the Taliban on Friday 12 August 2021. This was preceded by the capture of the city of Ghazni, which is close to the capital and the border crossings with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, and the capture of border areas with China.

The speed in which the government forces have collapsed in the face of the Taliban onslaught which seized a significant quantity of US military hardware, is reminiscent of the Iraqi army’s withdrawal from Mosul, leaving behind billions of dollars and US military equipment as booty for ISIS.

This indicates that the Taliban’s advance is, by and large, designed to arm the movement and grant it the ability to spread rapidly and besiege the capital from all corners, with US intelligence expecting its fall within 30 to 90 days maximum.

With the aim of causing further tension and security anxiety in Central Asia, which is one of the American aims designed to preoccupy China and Russia by reviving China’s security challenge in the Afghan province of Badakhshan and keeping Afghanistan as a hotbed of tension on China’s border, America announced she would send 3000 soldiers, followed by Britain with 600 soldiers, to “provide security and safe passage to evacuate some personnel from the embassy”, according to the statement of a State Department official spokesperson, knowing that the US has been reducing the embassy’s civilian staff since April, following the speech of Joe Biden in which he announced the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan by August 2021.

It is clear that this process and the swiftness in which it has been carried out and sensationalised is designed to provide the government of Kabul the cover to concede to the Taliban during the ongoing negotiations in Doha and to achieve the objective of replanting the Taliban in power, so as to act as a minefield in the New Silk Road and a breeding ground for what the West refers to as “terrorism” near Russia’s southern flank.

The Chairman of the British Foreign Affairs Committee and retired officer Tom Tugendhat commented on Twitter that “the decision to withdraw is like a rug pulled from under the feet of our partners,” and the Washington Post wrote in its leader article “Mr Biden’s precipitous withdrawal, as well as his refusal to offer more meaningful assistance to Afghanistan’s government, risks disaster”.

These actions emanate from the US plan that Biden revealed with some of its outlines during his speech to the American people last April. He announced that “only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country, and that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan government.” He added: "I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that. We accomplished that objective. We did that. We accomplished that objective... the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe". This means a trap is being laid for China and Russia, in addition to Iran, Tajikistan, and the Central Asian states. This is corroborated by the unanimous statement of the United Nations Security Council members, stipulating that “any force that seeks to take control of Afghanistan with the barrel of a gun, through the barrel of a gun, will not be recognized, will not have legitimacy, will not accrue the international assistance that any such government would likely need to achieve any semblance of durability,” and by the call of the members of the Security Council “on both the Islamic Republic and the Taliban to engage meaningfully in an inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process in order to make urgent progress towards a political settlement and a ceasefire.” This is also what High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Joseph Borrel expressed by saying “The Afghan government should engage with the Taliban to reach an inclusive settlement.” He added: “We encourage the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to settle political differences, increase representation of all stakeholders and engage with the Taliban from a united perspective.” This reflects a clear collusion between Europe and America on a new agenda towards China and Russia; in other words, America seeks to impose a new reality whereby the Taliban Movement will officially be present on Chinese and Russian borders.

This in turn explains the collusion of Europe, America and her agents to allow the Taliban to advance and dominate a third of the 34 provinces’ main cities within one week, and to seize control of the second and third largest cities in full view and within earshot of the Afghan army. The cities were brought under control through deals concluded with the governors of the cities and the provinces, indicating that the whole issue had been secretly concocted. The Taliban’s operations have generated an appropriate political climate in Kabul to accept the political participation of the Taliban, which is deemed a radical change in the Afghan government’s standpoint, which in the past used to reject such a notion under the pretext of “terrorism”. However, it has recently approved the concept of holding elections and expanding the political representation of the Taliban in government. Some diplomats told the British newspaper, the Independent, that the Afghan government proposed the forming of a joint government and the proposal was conveyed to the Qatari government which has been sponsoring the talks between the two warring sides.

It is common knowledge that major powers tend to achieve their interests; hence, they would either resort to their own forces for these interests, or exploit the forces of other states to achieve them on their behalf. Such exploitation entails being fuel and firewood for the wars of those powers, sacrificing the riches, lives and faculties of one’s country, in total disregard of the interests of his own country and Ummah, and turning his people and his Ummah into a mount for the powerful nations to achieve their interests.
It is tragic to see Muslims being lured into the trap of the guided media, which portrayed the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq as a triumph for Muslims, whereas in fact it is but a change in the form of colonialism and its evil styles, from direct colonisation to colonisation by proxy, and from direct military occupation to occupation through agents represented by the ruling gangs, warlords, oppressive bodies, intellectual setup and the media and judicial systems.

Therefore, we urge the sincere members of the Taliban not to enable their leaders, who have shaken hands with those who have slaughtered their children, raped their women and declared war on their religion, to seize the reins of power; and we urge them not to turn Afghanistan into a paw in the hands of America, with which she would preoccupy America’s adversaries, and not to be stung from the American hole once again. They were previously used to deplete the Soviet Union and dismantle its unity and power, and turned Afghanistan into a training ground for their forces and a laboratory to test their weapons. We urge them not to lean towards America as she is a volatile evil, and goodness will never come from such evil under any pretext.

Dear Muslims

The Muslims are not destined to remain pawns on the international chessboard, nor tools that America exploits to achieve her own goals, nor to remain mounts for the Kuffar through whom they achieve their aims and then slaughter them once they have served their purposes.

The destiny and the status of the Muslims is to be leaders of the world, bringing its peoples out of darkness and into the radiance of Islam, and carrying the beacons of guidance to the nations and peoples of the world, and thus, fulfilling the command of their Lord. Allah the Almighty says: “And thus have made you the Ummah of wassat (best and just) , so that you may be witness to mankind.” [al-Baqarah-143]. They will also be fulfilling the glad tiding of their Prophet ﷺ who said: “Verily, Allah drew the ends of the world near me until I saw its east and west, and the rule of my Ummah will reach what has been drawn near me.”

Fulfilling this glad tiding will not be through inclining towards the Kuffar, proceeding in their path, and achieving their interests, but rather by knowing that they are Kuffar seeking to alienate Islam from life and world politics, exploiting Muslims to serve their interests, and preventing them from breaking free from the yoke of their colonialism.

Dear Muslims

The real victory is resuming the Islamic way of life and establishing the Khilafah State that implements Islam domestically and carries it as a message to mankind. This is the victory Muslims would welcome and shed tears of joy to witness. Only the dictatorial collaborating regimes stand in the way of achieving this victory. If they removed them with their own hands, they would disappear, and with them, colonialism; and the influence of the Kafir West would disappear and its false glow will fade away for good.

“For, Allah always prevails but most people know it not.” [Yusuf-21]

Hizb ut-Tahrir   

7 Muharram 1443h
15 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - Dimensions of the Tensions Surrounding the Iranian File 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Dimensions of the Tensions Surrounding the Iranian File

The oil tanker Mercer Street operated by Zodiac Maritime, a group owned by an "Israeli" businessperson, was attacked at the end of July 2021 off the coast of Oman, in what has become known as the “shadow war” between Iran and "Israel". Two crew members, a Romanian and a Briton were killed in the attack. The BBC reported that the ship had sailed to a safe location under US naval escort.

Iran, for her part, denied involvement in the attack, deeming it a fabrication and a “conspiracy against Iran”, after her official papers had claimed responsibility for the attack and celebrated it as conservative President Ebrahim Raisi took office.

"Israel" threatened to respond “appropriately” and to refer the issue to the UN; meanwhile, European and US intelligence sources pointed the finger at Tehran and deemed her the prime suspect. "Israeli" prime minister Naftali Bennet announced that "Israel" was mobilising the international community to call Iran to account. These statements were seconded by "Israeli" leaks alluding to joint "Israeli"-British preparations to stage a counterattack against an Iranian target in retribution for the British victim. Romania and America then joined the coordination to discipline Iran and make her pay the price for what she had perpetrated.

In fact, despite the powerful statements and threats, the measures undertaken and the request made to Russia to monitor navigation in the Gulf reveals that the event had been concocted prior to the start of the US-Iranian negotiations on the nuclear file and in the midst of the tussle between Netanyahu and Naftali Bennet over how to deal with Iran, in order to exert pressure on the conservative wing in Iran and twist its arm to accept the upshots of the ongoing negotiations with the US and the ”international community”, and in order to give Bennet the chance to outdo his rivals and smash Netanyahu’s monopoly over the “loudest voice” on the Iranian threats, in addition to neutralising the domestic American conservative voices calling for dealing decisively with Iran.

Although the timing of the attack on the oil tanker Mercer Street coincided with the UN conference on “Maritime Safety”, which America harnessed against China and the events in the South China Sea, and which she has also been harnessing for the security of the Gulf region and maritime navigation, a host of objective elements, however, necessitate stimulating political interactants and intensifying the confrontation with Iran and her surrogates, especially Hezbollah which is still hampering endeavours to form the Lebanese government in order to secure an influential seat in the cabinet, in addition to intimidating the Houthis and warning the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces affiliated to Iran against thwarting the forthcoming elections al-Kadhimi intends to hold in light of his recent understandings with Biden, the withdrawal of US forces, and America’s intention to grant al-Kadhimi an achievement enabling him to regulate the Iraqi political process within the framework of rectifying the standpoints of the Iranian conservative movement, which considers dwarfing Iran’s functions, clipping her wings, retrenching her gains in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, and bringing her back to her original functional square in the region, a grievance they are attempting to reverse through the troublemaking instigated by its sectarian surrogates, pursuing its policies of rivalry and jostling with Iran’s conventional opponents in the region, namely, Saudi, Turkey, and "Israel", and through attempting to acquire the function of an affiliated state, with the rank of a strategic partner and major sponsor of US interests in the Middle East. This vision was expressed by former Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki in a letter to former US ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalil Zadeh through the defunct Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in which he wrote: “What do the Americans want from us? We supported the liberation of Iraq from Saddam; we supported the Iraqi Interim Governing Council and the presidential elections, and we supported this new situation that the Americans have imposed on Iraq. There is nothing the Americans have done that we have not supported. So, tell your friend what more do they want from us?” Talabani conveyed the message to Zalmay Khalil Zadeh who replied to Talabani with, “We want stability and security in Iraq,” which means stability and security in the context of the regional solution, and the integration of "Israel" into the region, something which the decision-makers in America and the world agree upon.

In this regard, it would be imperative to note that the US initiative for the Middle East and the Islamic world clashes with the interests and the Aqeedah of the people of the region, and undermines, in some of its aspects, the fundamentals upon which the functional regimes are built, especially those which derive their legitimacy and popular bases from nationalistic resources, such as Turkey, religious resources, such as Saudi, and nationalistic and sectarian resources, such as Iran.

This is why Turkey broke free from affiliation and Iran exceeded her functional mandate in some issues. Turkey’s breakaway from affiliation and Iran’s transgression of her functional boundaries were dictated by the need to preserve the achievements of the leaders, parties and political elites, and to protect their political future, especially in the presence of an intense domestic and regional tussle to gain the trump cards which would increase the value of the regime in the market of securing Western interests in the region.

It would also be imperative to indicate that the US does not give weight to affiliated states and the collaborators such as Iran, Saudi, the Emirates and the Afghan government, which the US has recently compelled in losing its conflict with the Taliban, due to her renewed need to invest in Islam and undermine the stability of the regions neighbouring China and the Russian southern border pockets. Likewise, America does not give weight to her allies, including the Jewish leaders in "Israel", when she designs her international policies; this is why she turned a blind eye to Hamas’s missile attacks on "Israel" and colluded to thwart Netanyahu’s efforts to get re-elected.

Therefore, initiating a military strike against Iran in the context of downsizing her and scaling down the level of her threat to "Israel" in order to encourage the government of Naftali Bennet to adhere to the course of American policy, is not likely but it cannot be ruled out, as there is no consolation for the collaborators. This was the fate of Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Zein El-Abideen Ben Ali, and Ali Abdullah Saleh. However, America’s penchant for the military option against Iran, or otherwise, depends chiefly on the extent of erosion in the extremist political mood and rightwing mentality in "Israel" and on the compliance of the "Israeli" public opinion with the peace process and regional integration through the gate of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, which will contain the Palestinian “resistance” groups. It also depends on the response of the conservative Iranian movement to the American demands in respect of Iran’s surrogates and their troublemaking in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.

As for the "Israeli" side, it seems that the government of Bennet is so far responsive to the American test. The spokesperson of the "Israeli" army announced on 6 August 2021 that his country had “no interest in escalating the situation and going to war”. By escorting and protecting the Mercer Street oil tanker owned by an "Israeli" tycoon, America wanted to corroborate "Israel’s” need for American protection and the necessity to comply with her policies.

As for Iran and the rest of the countries of the region, they are complying with the American dictates, adapting to the new situation after the arrival of Biden who is proceeding according to the principle of “sustainable policy” instead of the policy of concluding deals and relying on the collaborators, and proceeding very cautiously to secure their continuance in power in exchange for their services.

Hence, the Ummah continues to pay from her faculties and at the expense of her revival the invoice of affiliation according to which the rulers of the region are proceeding in service of their American master, even if this led to destroying the resources, causing death and mortgaging the future of the region and its masses to her enemies. Needless to say, the region would not achieve a real liberation unless the conditions generated by the Kuffar in the Muslims lands were rectified, and unless the Aqeedah of the Ummah is placed exclusively as the foundation of revival and the relationship with other countries. Otherwise, the region will continue to be subjected to Western influence and the Muslims will continue to pay the price.

6 Muharram 1443h
14 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - Clarifications on Kais Saied’s Coup 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Clarifications on Kais Saied’s Coup

First: The foreign instructions given to Kais Saied, be they by France or the US, do not denote the presence of a clash between them, and that the outcome would be in favour of either side at the expense of the other because the international, regional, and domestic political situation in Tunisia is settled in favour of the US thanks to the might, tools of pressure and influence she enjoys. However, the decision of the excessively narcistic Kais Saied to hijack the critical political scene due to his rift with his “co-wives”, and his disruption of society and political life, with the help of his secularist allies, such as Abeer Mousa, will culminate in a settlement where the beneficiaries will only be the Kafir West and the collaborating political milieu which will seize the opportunity to wipe out its squalor, reproduce the regime and regulate its process and snip the tails of the “revolutionary situation” which the Arab Spring has societally left behind, especially as Kais Saied was selected from outside the political milieu in order to do away with the choice of the forces representing the Islamic tendency who have been exploited in the process of dismantling the regimes and containing the masses’ movements and trends.

As for the international plane, France’s manoeuvre is not expected to bear fruit with her juggling of the political contradictions in Tunisia, Libya, and Algeria to gain the support and leadership of European states within the framework of her jostling with Germany over European leadership following Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU). It is worth mentioning in this context that Kais Saied lent his ear to France, whose colonialism of Tunisia he described as “protection”, despite having acceded to power via the American gate, as France was behind his move to disrupt the political scene and America was never absent from the event, allowing it to happen in order to set the scene in a manner that will compel France and her surrogates, as well as the people of Tunisia, to capitulate. All this is corroborated by striking indications such as the coup having been staged within the context of France’s attempts to impede America’s agenda for Europe and NATO, the Russo-European relationship and the concord between America and Germany which involves settling the outstanding glitches on Nord Stream 2, and in the context of America’s enterprise to frustrate France’s endeavours to achieve any gains in Libya, Mali, Chad, Algeria, Tunisia and the Eastern Mediterranean without American endorsement. In other words, the Tunisian soft coup has not been staged as a result of harmony and concord in the Franco-American relationship, or an agreement as is the case in the Lebanese issue, but rather in the context of a dissonance and a French sulkiness which was manifested in France’s attempt to hold a tripartite summit with Germany and Russia a month ago which was foiled by America through the objection of Bucharest Nine, which is a group of European countries opposed to Russia and grateful to America for helping them get rid of Russian intervention and threats following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another striking indication that France was behind Kais Saied’s coup is reflected in what the Middle East Eye published quoting Tunisian and Italian sources, namely that “ambassadors from Germany, Italy and the US have all told him to restitute parliament ASAP,” that “the Americans stopped him from holding a mass rally in favour of his power grab…they have all passed messages of support to Rachid Ghannouchi, the speaker of parliament and head of Ennahda, as well as other party leaders,” and that “US Senators Jim Rische and Bob Menendez, the ranking member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said they were “deeply concerned” by the growing tension and instability in Tunisia. "President Saied must recommit to the democratic principles that underpin US-Tunisia relations and the military must observe its role in a constitutional democracy."

Moreover, Facebook decided to block the account of the largest group supporting the coup, whose followers exceeded one million, under the guise of inciting hatred, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) refused to resume negotiations on Tunisian loans except with a “legitimate government”. Hence, France’s harnessing of the “immigration and terrorism” scarecrow together with the tension south and east of the Mediterranean will be exploited by America validate the role of NATO and justify its continuance; and in this context, America has forged ahead with her initiative to bring together Libyan stakeholders through the political process and the elections scheduled to be imposed in December, and to expel Russian and Turkish forces from Libya, while threatening through Aguila Saleh and Khalifah Haftar to return to the cycle of armed struggle and division to regions of western Libya and the Libyan people in general, especially the armed groups earmarked to be contained and integrated into state institutions to accept the outputs of the political solutions.

Second: The wild card in the equation of change does not merely lie in rejecting the status quo, but also in possessing the civilisational alternative expressing the ideology of the masses, i.e., their doctrine and their system, and epitomising their will and choice of leadership; it also lies in the persistence to impose the alternative with a decisive doctrinism worthy of the sacrifices that have been made. This is because repression, corruption, despotism and misgovernance fall under the direct sensation of the masses, and they can easily be identified, rejected and overturned. However, imposing the alternative is what requires an insightful and doctrinal political vision and a robust resoluteness. Western powers headed by the US perceived this reality and based their strategy, since the Arab Spring erupted, on generating perfunctory change to protect the essence of the regimes in Arab countries, whereby the masses would remain in a state of constant confusion and division. Each time a collaborator was exhausted, they would bring another one via the masses or the army with a cosmetic popular cover to exhaust the masses’ volition in the nominal change, dismantle it, dominate the Ummah and make her despair of achieving liberation, change and revival.

Kais Saied and Nabil al-Qarawi received support from civil societies, syndicates and charities linked to foreign powers, and it would be prohibited for the Muslim masses to rely on a corrupt political system, or to expect their will for change to be effectuated when it conforms to the foreign will and the domestic and foreign electoral districts become one and the same because even if the president’s hands were clean, he would act as a sedative to the masses, an embellishment of the corrupt regime and the collaborating milieu, and a servant to the system of corruption and the foreign powers pillaging the Muslims’ resources with a popular mandate. The Muslims should perceive that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and they should beware of the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They should also perceive that the colonial powers, headed by the US, dominate the political milieux, civil societies and decision-making circles in Muslims’ lands, and that any change based on other than Islam would only yield disappointment and aggravated helplessness and despair from the notion of change, and would only lead to being acclimatised with reality, injustice, the oppressors and the watchdogs of Western interests. It would also lead to redefining governance and reducing it to providing municipal services and collecting waste, rather than running the domestic and foreign affairs of the masses, as well as changing the personnel rather than changing the system and purging the political milieu and the military, security, judicial and media institutions, and implementing the Aqeedah of the masses in all aspects of life.

Third: Partial or “soft” secularism is not a transitional phase between brutal eradicationalist secularism and Islam, but rather the final solution they want to entrench under the guise of gradualism, the art of the possible, necessities, interests, objectives of Shari'ah, repelling detriments, the lesser of the two evils, and “Kufr less than Kufr”, which would lead to harmony with the secularist system in its quality as an incubator for reform and change, rather than leading to restoring Shari'ah and its referentiality in life, the state and society. Ninety percent of those who voted for Kais Saied and those who recently revolted in Iraq, Sudan, and Algeria, entered their youth through the gate of rebellion against reality, the regimes and the rulers. It is therefore imperative to fuse them with Islam and steer their motivation to generate change. This rumbling torrent of Muslim youths, who rose-up to generate change despite their oblivion to their religion, constitutes the greatest challenge to the colonialist West this century. This is why the West has been intensifying their bombardment of the region with collaborators, spies, saboteurs, beasts and wolves in sheep’s clothing. They have been recruiting smugglers of corrupt thoughts and showering the minds of the youths with secularist and atheist concepts and thoughts alien to their religion to drive them away from change, liberation and revival.

This rumbling torrent of youths is like the first rain, despite the scum and the conspiracies staining it. When the water comes down, it is not expected to ascend but to descend and run through the rocks and rugged valleys with the scum, then it will settle and subside to germinate the trees that grow and bear delicious fruit. Allah the Almighty says: “He sends down water from the sky, and river-beds are running high according to their measure, the stream carries scum on its surface.” [al-Ra’ad-17]; “As far as the scum is concerned, it passes away as dross; but that which is of benefit to man abides on earth.” [al-Ra’ad-17]. Indeed, the Kuffar have ignited a fire in Muslims’ lands: “And, likewise, from that which they smelt in the fire in order to make ornaments or utensils, scum.” [al-Ra’ad-17], but it is the fire that will separate the precious metals in the Ummah from the scum and impurities to uncover the gemstone and the strong and robust bloc from which the Ummah will benefit with the leave of Allah the Almighty.

Hence, it is imperative to revive the work towards resuming the Islamic way of life, expound the truth, correct the concepts, and dry out the wells of secularist thought upon which the regimes are built, and from which the tyrannical rulers and their surrogates derive their foreign support.

“In this way does Allah set forth the parable of truth and falsehood.” [al-Ra’ad-17]

29 Thil Hijjah 1442h
8 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org  

Political Comment - Islamic Political Awareness 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Comment

“And do not incline towards, nor rely upon, those who are bent on evildoing lest the fire should touch you” [Hud-113]

The coup that Kais Saied carried out was not a surprise except for those whose vision was clouded, and thus, decided to incline towards the transgressors thinking they were entrusted with the fate of the Ummah, or even sincere in the event of antagonism. Although Allah has warned us against inclining towards the transgressors, trusting them, and confiding in them with history proving their malice and betrayal whenever their interests were at stake, the children of the Ummah and those who claim being her representatives continue to be stung from the hole of their enemies over and over again, as if oblivion were their second nature and acquiescence to the evildoers and the rules of Kufr were their fate.

Some Muslims thought well of al-Sharif Hussein who in turn had thought well of the British. Hence, he conspired with them against the Ottoman State but after the British had achieved their aim, they turned on al-Sharif Hussein and threw him in jail. The Muslims were also buoyant when they thought the Arab armies would come to liberate Palestine but instead, they handed Palestine to the Jews on a silver platter. The sequence of inclining towards the evildoers continued unabated. Some Muslims in Egypt had thought that supporting the revolution of the Free Officers would be good for Muslims; but no sooner the officers had seized the reins of power and tighten their grip on the state’s apparatuses than they turned on their supporters and threw them in jail. Indeed, it is only natural for such a consequence to be the fate of those who do not adopt Shari'ah as the foundation of their comportments and standpoints.

When the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was concocted, a group from our people in Palestine thought it would liberate Palestine and throw the Jews in the sea; hence, they hastened to support it with funds and manpower and turned it into a legitimate representative of the Palestinians, until this organisation ended up relinquishing Palestine to the Jews and turned into a watchdog for their entity and the godfather for recognising and normalising ties with it.

In recent years, inclining towards the evildoers has become evident in pivotal events such as the ones taking place decades ago. When America backed the so-called Arab Spring revolutions, many Muslims thought that America had abandoned the collaborating rulers and that she had really decided to liberate the Muslims from their oppressors and enslavers. Hence, the masses rebelled against the rulers with the leaders of the rebels receiving funds and weapons from certain intelligence agencies affiliated to other collaborating regimes in the regions to confront the oppression of those rulers while embracing their own rulers’ armies and apparatuses of oppression for protection and mortgaging their decisions to them. But once the masses were disowned by them, they were left without any cover and became an easy prey for the regimes they had rebelled against.

In some countries, some activists thought the time was opportune to ride the wave of those revolutions and accede to power in order to implement Shari'ah in a gradual manner; yet again, those activists thought well of the remnants of those regimes and their hard nucleus and trusted them, only to fall into their traps by allowing them to seize the reins of power but keeping hold of the real power. They provoked disturbances against them until they portrayed them as failures and unable to govern; then they turned against them and threw them in jail after they had undermined the Ummah’s confidence in their abilities and in the system of Islam whose slogans they had hoisted when they were in office.

Today, the same scenario is unfolding in Tunisia, and in a more acute manner, namely the conspiring of Tunisian political forces, including al-Nahda, to pave the way for the return of the eradicationalist secularists to take control of the state, despite the ability of the former to have maintained the reins of power in their hands without any contest; hence they colluded with those secularists and backed them, and when the latter had succeeded in controlling the state, they turned on everyone and everything, restoring the Egyptian scenario; and each time, they were bulwarked behind the Kufr constitution which al-Nahda took part in drafting and propagating.

Dear Muslims

How long is this scene going to continue in Muslim lands, as if Muslims, especially the activists from among them, were stupid and naïve, unable to appreciate the religious responsibility and fate of the Ummah, and incapable of perceiving the ropes of politics and the schemes of the colonialists and their surrogates, and as if their foes were shrewder and more eloquent?

Dear Muslims

Is it not high time we perceived that political awareness is a prerequisite for success in political work, and that Shari'ah is its foundation and the tool regulating it, and that without Shari'ah, the Muslims would be lost and would squander all the efforts and sacrifices the Ummah has made in resources, blood and sincere children?

The Kuffar proposed power and authority to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ under their terms and conditions, but he categorically refused. Hence, they besieged and conspired against him, and incited the Arabs against him. However, it only strengthened his perseverance and certitude, and it never weakened his resolve, until the support of Allah was bestowed on him. Thus, he became mighty after his powerlessness and impregnable after being subjected to cruelty, violence and disillusionment. And when the people of al-Raji’ betrayed Asim ibn Thabit and those with him and besieged them, they pledged that if they surrendered, they would not kill them. Asim replied “As for me, I would never come under the covenant of a Kafir”; and then he fought until he was killed. As for the Sahaba who were with him, especially Khubayb ibn Adiy and Zayd bin al-Dathinnah, they accepted the covenant of the Kuffar who went on to betray them and sold them to the people of Makkah who killed them. Moreover, we have in the Bay’ah of al-Ridwan the best parable of steadfast, resolute, and unyielding standpoints; the pleasure of Allah the Almighty on the Sahaba was linked to their pledge to die for the sake of Allah, after the Messenger of Allah felt that the Kuffar were going to betray him with Uthman. Allah says: “Indeed, well-pleased was Allah with the believers when they pledged their allegiance to you under that tree.” [al-Fath-18]

This is how the Qur’an and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ teach us how not to incline towards the evildoers, lest hellfire touches us. This is how the Muslims working towards resuming the Islamic way of life should conduct themselves. They must neither accede to power under the terms and conditions of the Kuffar, nor come under the covenant of a Kafir. They should rather persevere and wait until Allah decides to grant them victory.

“But Allah will perfect His Light, even though the disbelievers detest it” [As-Saf-8]

Hizb ut-Tahrir                                                                                                                                                                   22 Thil Hijjah 1442h
                                                                                                                                                                                           1 August 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam & the Conspiracy Against Egypt and Sudan 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam & the Conspiracy Against Egypt and Sudan

On 22 July 2021, the Ethiopian National Security Affairs Advisor to the Prime Minister and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gedo Andargachew, announced that “the Nile was a river, and now it is a river and a lake.” He triumphantly added that “the Nile has indeed become ours.” The announcement came as Ethiopia marked the first anniversary of completing the first phase of filling the Renaissance Dam thanks to the rainfalls as claimed by the Ethiopian leaders. This Ethiopian announcement also came one day after the failure of the tripartite summit in which the African Union was a mediator. And despite the building of the dam having severe consequences on the water and food security of Egypt and Sudan, the Egyptian and Sudanese governments handled the issue in a complacent manner. In a press briefing, the director of the Nile Water Department in Sudan’s Ministry of Irrigation, Abdel Rahman Saghiroun, said that the level of water flow in the Blue Nile had returned to its normal levels after Ethiopia completed the second filling of the Renaissance Dam, and that the dam Ethiopia had been building no longer controlled the flow of water in the Blue Nile. Cairo for its part said it was monitoring the situation.

The agreement over the Declaration of Principles on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) was a legitimisation of an illicit action undertaken by Ethiopia; then it was legitimised with the collusion of Egypt and Sudan. Sudan’s decision, under British pressure, to relinquish the Benishangul province came with the stipulation that Ethiopia would not build any dams or alter the flow of the Nile’s waters to Egypt and Sudan. In order to sidestep this historic agreement, Ethiopia set about building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam a few kilometres from Sudan’s border in 2011 at the cost of $5 billion, which could reach $8 billion on completion of the project. This represents a major threat as it could cause a major flood in the region should the dam collapses due to natural or technical causes, or if it were targeted by the enemies of Muslims, knowing that a reduced quota for Sudan and Egypt from the Nile waters will have a significant impact on the production of electrical energy and on agricultural produce in both countries.

The collusion of Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and Abdul Fattah al-Burhan with Ethiopia on building the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is corroborated by the contribution by some Egyptian personalities and entities in bankrolling the construction of the dam ,such as Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris in particular, who is one of major investors in this project, in addition to several banks in Egypt, the UAE, Saudi, "Israel", Italy, China, and other countries.

As for Abdul Fattah al-Burhan, despite Ethiopia’s persistence until the last moment on carrying out the second filling and on classifying the issue as a domestic matter, with total disregard to the strategic threat posed to the control of the Nile’s waters, he announced during his meeting with the European Union’s (EU) Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Annette Weber, that dialogue was the only way to tackle the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam; then Sudan's Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources concluded that the second filling did not affect the flow of water in the Blue Nile and that it had returned to its normal levels.

Moreover, the threats issued by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abie Ahmed to retaliate against any military aggression because of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam indicates that he has been given Western protection for his actions which threaten the lives of the Muslims in Egypt and Sudan.

All this indicates the presence of an American process in the preparation of both a political and economic investment, as well as an initiation of the Ethiopian role in East Africa and the Horn of Africa due to its closeness to the Gulf region and international maritime routes and due to the necessity to control them to confront the Belt and Road Initiative and regulate China’s excessive expansion in Africa. Additionally, Ethiopia’s role is linked to tightening the grip on Egypt and Sudan from beyond their borders and not rely solely on the domestic US influence, despite the collusion of al-Sisi’s regime in handling the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the issue of the two Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which he surrendered to Saudi with the aim of turning the maritime route between Saudi and Egypt into an international route overseen by international law which is represented by the US rather than the people of the region. Hence, the project of the Ethiopian dam is an American plan designed to control the fate of Egypt and Sudan and prevent any moves towards union between them in the long-term as this would undermine the US and Western strategic interests, especially after the Arab Spring revealed the threat of popular standpoints and the accentuated willpower of the people of the region to gain independence and break free from the shackles of American influence. What also proves that the issue has been concocted for these purposes is Russia’s standpoint and her refusal to back Sudan’s and Egypt’s calls for internationalising the issue by moving it to the Security Council. Russia rejected the Egyptian request and proceeded with America by stressing the need to settle the issue via the African Union. Prior to this, America appointed an official envoy to the Horn of Africa to oversee the struggle and regulate the disputes. She also backed Saudi mediation between Egypt and Ethiopia and praised, and maybe instructed, Saudi businessman Mohammed al-Amoudi for having deposited $500 million in gold in the Ethiopian treasury.

Besides, the American discourse has not changed since Biden took office. Successive statements in the past four months have been stressing the importance of Ethiopia’s regional security and unity. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, for his part, stressed the importance of continuing the regional dialogue to settle the the Renaissance Dam dispute. Moreover, America has been exerting pressure on al-Sisi to lower the tone of his speeches in which he has threatened a military solution, and to forge ahead with the political solutions, with the aim of effecting the Dam project, by urging him to release several prominent political prisoners as demanded by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. This prompted al-Sisi to retract from the military solution by announcing that Egypt was merely seeking her right to the waters of the Nile. The resumption of the conspiratorial political solutions, with continued silence of Muslims over them and their lack of action to remove the collaborators and establish their state, is now threatening their sustenance, life, and future.

17 Thil-Hijjah 1442h
27 July 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Political Comment - Tunisia Crisis 

Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Afghanistan: US Withdrawal & Turkey’s Role

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced on 14 June 2021 during a press conference before heading to Brussels to partake in the NATO summit that Turkey was “the only credible country to administer the situation in Afghanistan soundly.” Before this, Turkish defence minister Hulusi Akar was quoted by Hürriyet Daily News as saying: “What are our conditions? Political, financial, and logistical assistance. If these are available, we can stay at Hamed Karzai international airport. We are waiting for the answer regarding our conditions.”

It is common knowledge to political observers of Turkish affairs that although President Erdoğan is independent of the US, he has nevertheless been practising politics according to his perception of the rules of engagement and the orientation of the US, and according to his perception of international relationships and the margins of reproachments, understandings, and differences; he has been exploiting the fissures in international relations to achieve nationalistic, economic and political gains, while averting the wrath of the US, and maintaining his gains at the plane of the relationship with Russia and the regional states to avoid the threats that may affect Turkey and consequently undermine his domestic popular base.

In this context, it is imperative to realise that Turkey has not directly taken part in the war in Afghanistan and has contented herself, despite being a NATO member state, with the task of securing Kabul airport, offering humanitarian aid, investing in some projects and training Afghan domestic forces. The Turkish army has refused to be involved in any offensive military operations or any direct military operation.
Hence, Turkey is attempting through her role within NATO and her presence in Afghanistan to emphasise her importance to America and her political and military ability to execute NATO’s tasks and substantiate its continuance in carrying out international missions, while Europe has been attempting to distance herself from such ventures. This fits into the framework of Erdoğan’s perception of America’s aims behind withdrawing from Afghanistan, paving the way for the Taliban to control the border crossings with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, and of her desire to keep Afghanistan a hotbed of tension and a threat to China and the Belt and Road Initiative, as per the “Pivot towards Asia” theory devised by Hilary Clinton in 2011 to engross China and Russia in Central Asia by inducing them to jostle for it.

Hence, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan represents a security challenge to China which shares a border with the pocket of the Badakhshan Wilaya, which has recently fallen into the hands of the Taliban; this poses a security threat to China with the presence of pro-Taliban Islamic movements aspiring to salvage the Uyghurs from Chinese oppression in Xinjiang province, which is at the heart of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

This was corroborated in President Joe Biden’s recent speech where he described China as the biggest strategic threat to the US in the next 20 years. It also fits into the framework of Erdoğan’s vision of the interests Turkey could achieve in exchange for securing Kabul airport, establishing contact with the Taliban, and possibly, gaining a share in Afghan reconstruction contracts. All this falls within the sphere of the Turko-American understanding which is built on the principle of exchanging, harnessing and investing in the areas of common interest, despite their differences over other files. This understanding on Afghanistan is designed to induce rivalry and tension between Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and India, which America has encouraged to invest in Afghanistan. This is why the Taliban’s advance targeted the northern borders i.e., Tajikistan, which is adjacent to the Chinese borders, and Turkmenistan, which is adjacent to Iran, which, together with Russia, Turkey, and Qatar has recently been attempting to mediate between the Afghan government and the Taliban. This Turko-American course and understanding have materialised despite America’s manoeuvring to exert pressure on Erdoğan through the Taliban’s objection to the presence of Turkish troops in Afghanistan, especially as Erdoğan needs to mellow his relationship with Biden, lest the latter should target him and destroy his efforts and economic and political gains which enhance the chances of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in the forthcoming elections.

America is expected to instruct Qatar to soften the Taliban’s stance on Turkish presence in Afghanistan to maintain NATO’s presence and using Turkish impartiality towards Afghanistan’s diverse ethnic and religious groups, thus enabling control of the Afghan society while thwarting the covetous designs of China and Russia to gain a central role in the Afghan equation.

Turkey had insisted that Hungary and Pakistan should also stay in Afghanistan because despite being a NATO member state, Hungary does not have the clout and influence to compete with her. Turkey does not fear Pakistan’s presence in the Afghan file and views her presence as imperative since she has enjoyed significant influence in Afghanistan at popular, tribal, and military intelligence levels since 1979, not to mention her role in establishing the Taliban in 1993 at the behest of America herself.

This is why Russia is averse to the Turkish role in Afghanistan. Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov stated that “Turkey’s plans to secure Kabul airport after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan violated the agreements concluded with the Taliban.” This is because Russia does not welcome increased Turkish influence in Central Asia adding to her existing influence such as in Azerbaijan and gaining more leverage, or exerting more pressure on Russia, such as her cooperation with Ukraine. Russia wants a relationship of cooperation and mellow atmospheres rather than a rivalry with Turkey. She also wants to shift Turkey from the position of being her equal and to keep her in need of her help in confronting the West or at least neutralise her. Turkey however wants to corroborate her role and break the siege that America and Russia are attempting to impose on her beyond her borders. This is what Erdoğan expressed on Friday 26 June 2021: “If Turkey failed to establish a strong security belt abroad, they would not allow us to enjoy our stability in our homeland.” Turkey is attempting to monopolise the energy supply routes from Central Asia to Europe, including the energy routes from Afghanistan; this is why America allowed the Taliban to control the whole of Afghanistan and backed its accession to power in 1996.

Turkey hopes to have influence over the pipelines and transport routes within the framework of her designs to become the most important energy centre in Europe, following the major oil discoveries in three onshore wells, the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey is also likely to offer her technological abilities in extracting Afghan oil, especially since the Taliban are vehemently attempting to seize eight oil wells in the northern province of Sar-e Pol currently being exploited by the Afghan government.

2 Thil Hijjah 1442h
12 July 2021

hizbuttahrir.org  

Political Observation Saudi-Emirati Rift 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation -The Saudi-Emirati Rift

The Saudi-Emirati rift has resurfaced yet again, and this time it has revolved around the Emirates’ wish to increase its production quota within the OPEC Plus Group. As Saudi and Russia refused to approve this increase, the Emirates insisted on increasing its quota from 3.2 to 3.8 million barrels per day.

The UAE has also rejected the Russo-Saudi proposal to increase production gradually by 400,000 barrels per day each month, from the date of the agreement concluded in April 2020, until 2022, and insisted on increasing its market quota amid the market’s demand for oil and the rise of the price to over $70 per barrel. However, Saudi, with the backing of Russia, not only rejected the Emirati proposal but went a few steps further by imposing a host of economic sanctions on the Emirati free zones, such as imposing tariffs on Saudi-destined Emirati goods totalling $10 billion. Saudi has also suspended the movement of Saudi travellers to the UAE and called on Saudi nationals in the UAE to return home. This Saudi decision is set to cause major losses to the UAE which welcomes about 2 million Saudi tourists each year who spend generously in the property and commercial markets in the Emirates.

Some observers might think that this recurrent “economic” rift between Saudi and the Emirates could jeopardise the close relationship between Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed to whom America has assigned a host of joint tasks to serve her interests, as was the case with the siege they imposed on Qatar, the constant pressure being exerted on Turkey, the pursuit of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the war on Yemen with the plans to divide it into a north for the Houthis and south for the Southern Transitional Council (STC).

In fact, the Saudi-Emirati rift should be perceived in the context of the previous squabbles between the two countries, especially in respect of the economic rivalry between them which reached its peak when prince Mohammed bin Salman enacted several openness policies, persisted in ensconcing a tourism economy to rival the UAE and pursued a domestic policy of openness under the theme of entertainment with the planned city of NEOM on the Red Sea to rival Abu Dhabi in every aspect. Earlier this year, Riyadh issued a surprising resolution stipulating the need to relocate the regional offices of foreign companies operating in the Gulf to Saudi by the year 2024, with 25% of these companies’ workforce to be Saudi nationals; otherwise, they would lose their contracts with the Saudi government. This decision has dealt the UAE a heavy blow and has bluntly informed foreign companies of the need to relocate to Saudi should they wish to win contracts totalling billions of dollars in the largest markets of the Gulf region.

As for the political aspect of the rift, it is indicated by the displeasure of Abu Dhabi of the reconciliation between Riyadh and Doha that took place last January after three years of diplomatic estrangement between Qatar on the one hand, and Saudi, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt on the other. It is also indicated by the decision of the Emirates to withdraw from the joint war on Yemen in 2019, without prior consultation or coordination with Saudi; this evoked the wrath of Saudi since the two countries constituted the backbone of a regional military coalition that had conducted the struggle in Yemen and flexed its muscles in other places.

The American silence over this Saudi-Emirati rift means that America is pleased with this scenario and supports what Saudi has undertaken considering that she represents the vehicle of cultural change towards secularism in the Gulf region due to her Islamic and demographic weight, and towards breaking the religious taboos in the face of normalising relations with "Israel", liquidating the issue of Palestine, curtailing the Islamic Da’awah in general, deepening and justifying the secularisation of Islam by drying up its conventional sources such as Salafism, unlike the Emirates, whose rulers have imposed secularism on society but failed to influence the rest of the Gulf residents with it.

Hence, Saudi rulers are not only seeking through the 2030 plan to diversify the economy and incentivise foreign companies to invest in Saudi, but to also link this endeavour to generating systemic cultural, intellectual and behavioural changes which would be more liberal such as lifting the restrictions imposed on women, opening cinemas and organising singing and dancing concerts under the guise of the necessity of such openness to succeed in the economic plans and in attracting multinationals and foreign investment.
This is the policy of America which hinges on changing the Aqeedah of the Muslims through distorting its concepts and destroying its cornerstones with a smear campaign that casts doubts on its foundations and propagates Western concepts such as democracy, freedoms, philosophy, humanities and the scientific approach. This plan also seeks to drive a wedge between the behaviour of Muslims and their Aqeedah and its criteria through imposing the Western lifestyle and social behaviour on Muslims and their life’s systems, by driving them towards adopting a liberal and consumerist lifestyle, which with time, will make them lose their spiritual link to their Aqeedah and their adherence to the Shari'ah rules under the guise of economic growth and modern life.

1 Thil Hijjah 1442h
11 July 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Biden-Putin Summit & Strategic Stability
 

The Russo-American summit which Biden had solicited was held on 16 June 2021 at the historical Villa La Grange in Geneva. By the time the summit was held, America had implemented further sanctions on Russia intending to rally the allies and partners through the G7, NATO and the EU, in a calibrated political manoeuvre designed to unify the ranks of democratic states and engage in a battle America deemed as “existential” against the “dictatorial regimes”, namely Russia and China in particular. Biden addressed US troops at RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, UK by saying: “We’re going to make it clear that the United States is back, and democracies of the world are standing together to tackle the toughest challenges, and the issues that matter most to our future.” He stressed the significance of his first presidential trip by stating: “I believe we’re in an inflection point in world history, a moment where it falls to us to prove that democracies will not just endure, but they will excel as we rise to seize the enormous opportunities in the new age.” The significance of this meeting is heightened by the flurry of accusations America directed at Russia such as threatening the security and stability of Europe by meddling in Ukrainian affairs and backing the separatists, initiating several cyberattacks, abusing human rights in Russia and Belarus, harnessing energy as a strategic weapon to undermine Europe’s energy security, and meddling in US elections and the affairs of democratic states; Biden also described Putin as a “killer without a soul” and Russia as being scared. This was followed by a series of escalations, such as Moscow and Washington’s decision to recall their respective ambassadors, Russia’s deployment of 130,000 troops and hundreds of various weapons within the context of what Russia described as military drills, which Washington exploited to evoke Europe’s fears of war with Russia and to abort any attempt at a rapprochement between Russia and Europe, especially after the virtual meetings between Putin, Macron and Merkel. This prompted Putin to announce that relations between the two countries were at their worst since the Cold War. Biden responded by saying he agreed with Putin’s assessment.

However, the attitude of the two countries soon changed as the date of the summit approached. Biden announced on the eve of the G7 summit: “We’re not seeking conflict with Russia, we want a stable, predictable relationship. Our two nations share incredible responsibilities, and among them sharing strategic stability”. For his part, Putin exaggerated in singing Biden’s praises, describing him as experienced, level-headed and precise; he told state television that there were issues on which they could work together, such as nuclear disarmament, regional conflicts, and the environment. “And if we could generate a mechanism for working on these issues, we could then say that the summit was not ineffectual.”

It is common knowledge that Russia has been striving to maintain the momentum of her presence in the equation of world politics, especially in the former regions of her influence, to protect her lebensraum and halt her regression in the face of EU and NATO expansion, and to remain a significant element in the equation of European peace and security. Russia is attempting to persuade America to profit from her rather than take a belligerent stance towards her, and this was corroborated by the statement of Putin at the International Economic Forum in St Petersberg in which he said: “The US is attempting to contain the progress of Russia…. The world should realise the reality that Russia has regained her status and her power,” i.e., acknowledge the significance of her role and respect her position at an international level. It was also corroborated by the military escalation near the Ukrainian border through which Putin sent a message to America that she should not ignore her and exploit her without any returns of favour. The significance of the summit for Putin means that Russia should sit at the table with America as an equal and confirm her role and influence on the European political and security situation. This does not clash with the overall American aims. In fact, this was what America has been seeking to remind Europe of the threats posed by Russia’s rogue behaviour, through the political events taking place during the first months of Biden’s tenure, such as arresting Navalny, mobilising troops on the Ukrainian borders, and quelling the protests in Russia. Hence, during the first month of Biden’s tenure, the White House hastened to invite the Kremlin to hold a presidential summit during the US President’s first overseas trip, which was interpreted diplomatically as being praise for Russia and a response to Putin’s desire to be a “member of the club” and gain “respect on his terms”, especially with the symbolic characteristic of Geneva which hosted the 1985 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev. This narrative was expressed by Biden in his inaugural address by referring to the status of the two states as “two superpowers.”

It seems America wanted to initiate a fresh relationship between the US and Russia from this summit, based on mutual understanding and on enabling Biden from drawing the outlines of world politics and the relationship with Europe, and reproducing “soft power”, a capitalism that “serves the masses”, and liberal democracy, as well as containing China in exchange for some scraps to feed Putin’s domestic standing. Such consequences have not occurred in a vacuum; they were rather a natural outcome of Putin’s desire to avert a confrontation with Biden and to attempt reaching an agreement with him on the room of differences and understandings, and an inevitable upshot of the sanctions imposed by America and her allies on Russia since she invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, and what they yielded in terms of suppressing Putin’s appetite for being present and achieving foreign victories; America succeeded through the sanctions in reining Putin in and curbing his foreign aspirations that nurtured his domestic dominion, and in making the economic costs of his foreign policy and of maintaining his popular image greater than his personal and nationalistic exploits. One of the examples reflecting such a reality is the protests that erupted in March and April 2021, i.e., in the year of crucial elections of the Duma to be held in September 2021, in addition to America’s persistent carrot and stick policy with Putin; the Biden administration threatened to respond in kind and robustly and to continue financing the plan to wean Europe off Russian energy sources, which led Russia to realise that she would no longer be able to sustain her military spending, especially in the face of financial and economic sanctions targeting her main source of revenue from energy exports, and the growing domestic resentment towards the economic situation and the state’s policy of focusing its attention on upgrading its nuclear arsenal to gain superiority over the US in terms of Hypersonic Systems and strengthen the Russian nuclear deterrent now that it has lost part of its capabilities due to America’s deployment of missile batteries in Eastern Europe. Biden exploited Russia’s woes as a carrot to replace the stick of sanctions by arguing that “Russia would be viewed more favourably by other nations for investment and trade if Moscow respected political rights at home and operated within international norms.”

Therefore, the purpose of the “strategic stability” announced by the two presidents following the end of the summit could be perceived as a tool to conduct the relationship between the two countries. This could also be elucidated once the new inputs and explanations introduced by America to the classical definition of “strategic stability”, which dates back to the cold war, especially in the wake of the agreement concluded between the two superpowers in Vienna in 1961 when Russia accepted the principle of peaceful coexistence.

It is clear that America is attempting to deceive the world into believing that the international situation is “multipolar” and “more complicated”. This is reflected in Biden’s statement following the meeting when he said: “I told President Putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we all abide by.” This in fact reflects the policy pursued by the US to conceal her crimes and assign the dirty work to others, in addition to generating hotbeds of tension and scarecrows to compel the countries of the world to proceed under her leadership and execute her policies.

Hence, the purpose of raising the issue of “strategic stability” afresh is not related to regulating nuclear armament, which is a natural and constant issue in the relationship between America and Russia that arises each time one of the sides upgrades their nuclear arsenal, nor is it related to redefining the term to include the issues of cyberattacks, artificial intelligence and drones, but, in the words of the German ambassador Rüdiger Bohn, who was speaking at an International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Roundtable discussion, it is designed to “incorporate and adapt arrangements for new tech and security challenges and security domains”.

By reading all this, it transpires the presence of two aims for this American strategic vision: the first is disarmament and managing the threats of nuclear weapons which are regulated by international treaties within the framework of international law and its mechanism, such as “inspections, investigations and recordkeeping,” to implement this on the “group of current and future strategic issues” to avert what may undermine the stability of the international situation and America’s centrality. As for the second aim, it entails conveying a message, specifically to China, that political work and activities, and relations with America and the world should be conducted through adhering to the regulations and rules of the world order, which will achieve the US values and serve America’s interests and national security, and will embroil China in the talks pertinent to “strategic stability” and include her in the disarmament treaties, considering that the status of China’s armament policy and the intricacies of its upgrading in terms of delivery systems, capability and range are lacking transparency, according to experts.

This American trend towards the relationship with Europe and China necessitates perpetuating the state of uncertainty concerning the Russian political comportment. This was clearly expressed by Biden’s call for a “predictable” relationship with Russia, and his description of Russia as a superpower, unlike Obama, who described her as a regional power; Biden however stopped short of expressing confidence the summit would yield a change in Putin’s conduct. The American trends necessitate also launching the war of the models, instituting capitalism in its American liberal democratic format throughout the world, bargaining with Russia to make her return to the “club”, grant her an opinion and conditional and regulated influence through a working agenda determined by the US. In this context, President Biden announced “I also said there are areas where there’s a mutual interest for us to cooperate for our people, Russian and American people, but also for the benefit of the world and the security of the world,” in order to handle the threats to “strategic stability” that guarantees the centrality of the US, contain the conventional rival powers through international treaties which ensconce the traditions and rules of responsible behaviour and criminalise bad behaviour, and specify the mechanisms of reducing the threats, the mechanisms of inspection, verification, and disclosure. This stipulates expanding the system of “international behaviour” emanating from The Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation to include the concept of “strategic stability” through implementing Biden’s tenet stipulating that a growing world power also necessitates mature responsibility.

26 Thil Qi’dah 1442h
7 July 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Joe Biden’s Overseas Trip & NATO

In a statement issued on 3 June 2021, the White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, commented on Joe Biden’s trip to Europe by saying the “trip will highlight America’s commitment to restoring our alliances, revitalizing the Transatlantic relationship, and working in close cooperation with our allies and multilateral partners to address global challenges and better secure America’s interests.” She added that “President Biden will affirm the United States’ commitment to NATO, Transatlantic security, and collective defense. NATO leaders will discuss how to orient the Alliance to future threats and ensure effective burden sharing.”

Before travelling to Europe, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for his part, expounded the aspects of what Biden would tackle in his speech to NATO, indicating the “efforts to adapt the Alliance through the NATO 2030 initiative, making it more resilient and capable of confronting systemic challenges from Russia and the People’s Republic of China and responding to emerging and evolving challenges, including climate change and hybrid and cyber threats.”

Meanwhile, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters aboard Air Force One that “the United States regards NATO as the foundation for our security — not just in the Euro Atlantic, but worldwide," adding that NATO was “first and foremost, the centre for security and military coordination and collective defense, but it is also a forum for democratic values. It is an alliance of democracies.”

This US tendency is in total harmony with the remarks of Antony Blinken on the outlines of US foreign policy; he said “The world has changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and as you heard the President say, we have to adjust our strategy to meet the threats of 2021, not 2001, and take on the challenges that now demand our focus and resources.” All this has been reflected in America’s exploiting of Russia’s “provocations” to justify the continuance of NATO, expand its role, and contain the European defence and security policy, such as the huge military drills near the Ukrainian borders. It has also been noted that British and American policies in Europe have been in harmony. Britain has always backed the US standpoint towards NATO despite the evaporation of the reasons for its continuance, and despite America’s harnessing of the organisation to dominate Europe. Margaret Thatcher justified the need for NATO’s continuance by telling the Europeans in 1990: “You do not cancel your home insurance policy just because there have been fewer burglaries in your street in the last twelve months.” Hence. Britain has been providing America with the justifications for NATO’s continuance through her quarrels with Russia from time to time. Observers are aware of America’s tendency to cause France a host of domestic problems and target French interests in the context of rebuking Macron who has called for reviewing Putin’s proposal to make Europe a short and medium-range nuclear missiles free zone, and who was averse to classifying Russia as a NATO enemy, which prompted America to deter him from overstepping his boundaries with his endeavour to make Europe’s security independent of the US.

America withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty pertinent to European security in order to send shivers down the spine of the EU and to secure control of Europe’s security via NATO, and to incentivise Europe to increase her military spending, and the same time, she vigorously endeavoured to extend the New Start Treaty which threatened Europe’s security directly.

This American trend was corroborated by the speech of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, which he delivered in December 2020 and in which he debated the meaning of “Europe’s strategic autonomy”, which did not differ from the strategic choice for peace with the usurping entity that the collaborating Arab rulers are calling for. Josep Borrell warned of Europe’s weakness and her collapse while referring to Syria, Libya, the Sahel and Sahara region, and the absence of Europe’s effectiveness as an example. He also warned of “Astana-like” political solutions and went on to express his vision by corroborating the role of NATO, linking Europe’s defence and security future to it, and calling for building European industrial defence capabilities so that Europe may have an effective role within NATO. He also paradoxically corroborated the French vision by saying that no country was really talking about a European army independent of NATO. Borrel went on to define “strategic autonomy” as being related to Europe’s survival and specifically a significant Europe, stressing that it was not a struggle between those championing the chance to compete and curb US dominion, and the majority who fear a speedy US withdrawal.”

The NATO summit was preceded by the G7 meeting in Britain during which the leaders confirmed their strategic relationship by ratifying a “New Atlantic Charter” that determined the relationship and built the foundations of the transatlantic relationship for the forthcoming period.

The Charter includes 8 articles linked to Biden’s vision on the “war of the models” and “democratic alliance”, and his struggle to lead the world and amass international support against “autocracies”.

The first article of the Charter stipulates the following: “First, we resolve to defend the principles, values, and institutions of democracy and open societies, which drive our own national strength and our alliances. We must ensure that democracies – starting with our own – can deliver on solving the critical challenges of our time…” The second article referred to the following: “Second, we intend to strengthen the institutions, laws, and norms that sustain international co-operation to adapt them to meet the new challenges of the 21st century, and guard against those that would undermine them. We will work through the rules-based international order to tackle global challenges together; embrace the promise and manage the peril of emerging technologies; promote economic advancement and the dignity of work; and enable open and fair trade between nations.” These issues were reiterated in the NATO Summit’s closing statement which contained 9 articles expounding the “strategic concept” of the Alliance and listing China within the “concept of strategic threat” based on the new American formula which is built on the “war of models”, a formula NATO leaders pledged to ratify in the next Summit in 2022. They expressed in their statement that the “war of models” would act as a guide for the approach of the Alliance and that it would take into account the changing “strategic environment”, including “Russia’s aggressive actions” and the threats that China poses to the security, prosperity, and common values of NATO member states, as well as international threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and environmental changes.

We deduce from the details of the nine articles that the American aim from the NATO and G7 summits is restoring the role of the Alliance and attempting to reduce her forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East in its favour, and to project Biden as the leader of the democratic front, and at the same time, reproduce world capitalism in a manner that makes it seem that it is for the sake of the masses.

We conclude from America’s endeavour to resuscitate the international alliances and NATO in particular, in addition to the remarkable attention given to the Western democratic capitalist system, that America and all Western powers have come to realise that the capitalist ideology is undergoing a regression on the intellectual, political and economic planes; they have also perceived the threats posed by the hybrid Chinese system and the Islamic ideology, as well as the Russian system which is based on hard power. This is why the Biden administration is attempting to attract public opinion through the style of soft power and the liberal democratic capitalist system.

18 Thil Qi’dah 1442h
28 June 2021

Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - America Resets Situation in Mali

The leader of the military coup in Mali, Colonel Assimi Goïta, announced on Tuesday 25 May 2021 that he had stripped interim President Bah Ndaw and prime minister Moctar Ouane of their competencies, after they had been arrested and taken to Kati military camp near Bamako. The constitutional court announced afterwards that Colonel Assimi Goïta had been appointed President of the state of Mali “to lead the transition process to its conclusion". Goïta for his part announced on state television late on Friday evening that he would appoint a new prime minister from among the members of the alliance that led the protests against former President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita last year. Colonel Assimi Goïta, who led the coup that toppled President Keita on 18 August 2020, accused the President and the prime minister of attempting to sabotage the interim period by forming a new government without consulting him beforehand, although he was in charge of defence and security. He said, “this undertaking indicates a clear intention by the president of the interim period and the prime minister to violate the transitional charter… it has been proven that the intention was to sabotage the transitional process.” He added that he was “obliged to react and strip the president and the prime minister, as well as all the implicated individuals, of their prerogatives”. Colonel Assimi Goïta indicated in a statement aired on state television and read by one of his associates in military uniform that the “transitional process will continue its normal course and the elections will take place in 2022.”

The UN Mission in Mali, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), African Union, France, US, UK, Germany, and the European Union (EU) issued a joint communiqué in which they “strongly condemned the attempted coup and demanded the immediate and unconditional release of these authorities.” This was a preemptive American manoeuvre aimed at framing the reactions and confine them to the release of the interim leaders and the demands to return to the transitional political process; and this is exactly what happened soon after.

It seems America was behind goading Colonel Assimi Goïta to remove the interim president, Bah Ndaw, and prime minister Moctar Ouane from the scene in order to contain the popular resentment towards the French presence, and circumvent the manoeuvres of France who had been undermining the role of the putsch’s leaders to consolidate her influence through them. The picture becomes clearer by reading the sharp and tense French reaction to the coup that toppled the interim president and the prime minister; French President Macron was swift in condemning the coup, demanding the immediate release of Bah Ndaw and Moctar Ouane, and calling for the immediate resumption of the normal progress of the transitional period. In an interview with “Le Journal Du Dimanche” (JDD), Macron threatened to withdraw French troops from Mali if the country headed towards “radical Islamism” following a second coup in nine months. He stressed that he had passed a message to West African leaders stipulating that he would not support a country where democratic legitimacy and a political transition process were no longer in force. He also announced during a European summit that the European leaders “strongly denounced the arrest of Mali’s president and his prime minister,” which in his view was “a coup within a coup… which was unacceptable.” He concluded by saying that France was ready “in the coming hours to impose specific sanctions on the individuals involved.”

French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian for his part was quoted by French news agency as saying that “France condemns strongly the coup that took place Monday in Mali. We demand the release of the president and his prime minister whose safety must be secured, and the immediate resumption of the normal transitional process.”

France’s endeavour to lure the president of the transitional period and the prime minister was reflected in the collusion of the two men in reshuffling the cabinet and removing some ministers who were loyal to the leaders of the coup. The prime minister tendered his resignation from the new government on 14 May to President Bah Ndaw who reinstated him immediately and requested him to initiate a dialogue with the political class in order to form the forthcoming government. It was clear that France was behind forming the new government after she had weaved strong ties with President Bah Ndaw who had just returned from a Paris summit on Africa’s economy. Two days after his return from Paris on 24 May, he announced the new government, from which two military officers with ministerial portfolios were removed. All this occurred amidst a very tense atmosphere as the opposition, 5 June Movement – Rally of Patriotic Forces (M5-RFP) led by Sheikh Mahmoud Dicko, announced that they would stage a protest on 4 June with the aim of toppling the transitional government and dissolve the National Transitional Council.

The response of the army leaders was swift; one hour after the new cabinet was announced, interim President Bah Ndaw and prime minister Moctar Ouane were arrested and taken to a military base in Kati. Colonel Assimi Goïta, who was vice-president, announced that what happened was a sabotage of the transitional period because the prime minister and the President formed a new government “without consulting the vice-president.”

In order to lend legitimacy to the measures they undertook and gain popular support, the leaders of the coup in the military council invited the leaders of the 5 June Movement to Kati hours after the president and prime minister had bee arrested and pledged to appoint a new prime minister from among them.

This is how Mali’s second coup was carried out as an American step to bulwark the domestic situation against French troublemaking and to discipline France, Mali’s old colonialist master, who wanted to run Mali’s affairs in isolation of America. The US had allowed Russian presence in Mali and some African states to generate friction between her and France who has always objected to classifying Russia as an enemy to NATO, whereas Russia, who did not condemn the coup, saw its entry into Africa as an opportunity for investment and exchanging services with America, and this was inferred by Russia’s decision to veto the sanctions proposed by France against Mali during the extraordinary meeting of the United Nations Security Council held at the request of France.

America terrified France when she curbed her influence in Chad by doing away with Idriss Déby whom she used to allow to take the French interests into account. And due to France’s repeated attempts to infiltrate America’s agents in Algeria, Mali, and Tunisia, America endeavoured to muzzle her by liquidating those who coordinated with her such as Idriss Déby, and by toppling the Malian president and his cabinet. America is also working on disciplining Tunisia’s president Kais Saied by exposing his attempts to tinker with the structure of the regime and placing him before two options: either executing her agenda, maintaining the structure of the regime, supporting the “democratic transition”, consolidating decentralisation, and compelling France to secure her interests in Tunisia exclusively via the American gates, or face being constitutionally swept away if he continued lending his ears to France.

President Kais Saied received on 11 May 2021 a telephone call from US Vice-President Kamala Harris, and according to a communiqué issued by the White House, the two sides reiterated the importance of preserving the democratic institutions, upholding the sovereignty of law and combating corruption. Harris also stressed the continued commitment of the US to supporting democracy in Tunisia. According to leaked reports, Kamala Harris’s call came after the Francophone entourage surrounding President Kais Saied had impeded the US Undersecretary of State from meeting President Saied for two days. The US Undersecretary of State had made his request to the presidential office whose director, Nadia Akasha, was in contact with the French and coordinating with them according to confirmed reports. This is what led America to monitor France’s unilateral moves through which she is aspiring to fill the void left by Brexit, besiege her, thwart her manoeuvres, and control the areas of her influence and interests in Africa whose resources represents France’s lifeline.

21 Shawwal 1442h
3 June 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Unity of the Ummah & State - A Vital Issue

Ever since its early dawn and throughout its history, Islam has been facing tremendous challenges, and its followers have been subjected to various types of oppression, maltreatment and defamation which even their noble Prophet ﷺ was not spared. However, they faced those challenges with the resoluteness of believing men who were true to their pledge to Allah as they realised that their Deen together with their political and societal unity was a vital issue that determined their fate and the fate of their message towards which they were neither oblivious nor slack. The bloody struggle, which has been accompanying the intellectual struggle ever since the Islamic Ummah and the Islamic State came into being in Madinah and up until today, has been in defence of the vital issues that Islam and its worldwide message has determined. Hence, treating those issues as a matter of life and death was evident and inevitable.

Due to the magnitude of the issue of Jihad and its role in safeguarding the Aqeedah, Ummah and State, and in conveying the message, it has been decreed as one of the weightiest obligations. Allah says: “Say, “If your parents, your children, your siblings, your spouses, your relatives, the wealth you have acquired, business you worry about, and homes you love, are dearer to you than Allah, and His Messenger, and making Jihad in His way, then wait until Allah brings about His judgment.” Allah does not guide the rebellious people.” [at-Tawbah-24] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about Jihad: “The head of the matter is Islam, its support is prayer, and its peak is Jihad.” And due to its gravity, Jihad will be ongoing until the Day of Judgement, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Jihad is to be carried on whether the Muslim ruler is good or bad.” Hence, the Muslims never slackened for a moment in defending their vital issues and never hesitated in carrying out a life and death action in every vital issue they faced. When their fate as an Ummah and a State was threatened by the crusades, they tackled the threat with a life and death measure and fought a ferocious war against the crusader Kuffar lasting over 100 years, by the end of which the Islamic Ummah had succeeded in shielding herself against the fatal blow. The Muslims reacted in the same way when the Mongols invaded the lands of Islam. The Ummah deemed the Mongol invasion a threat to her fate and thus took a measure of life and death; the Muslims waged a ferocious war against the invaders and sacrificed their lives until they achieved a decisive victory.

The unambiguous perception of the threat to the Ummah’s vital issues was prominently on display among Muslims; it was inconceivable for any occurrence threatening their fate to crop up with them failing to respond with what Islam obliged, namely a life and death response. The Islamic Ummah and the Islamic State had always been aware of the vital issues and the measures that were needed for them. However, when the understanding of Islam weakened to the point of deviation, and piety in the hearts weakened to the point where people kept silent over flagrant Kufr, these vital issues were no longer deemed as such, and no life and death measures were taken towards them. Then the threat to their fate arose and Muslims failed to sacrifice their lives at any cost to repel it. Consequently, the Khilafah was destroyed, the system of Islam was removed, and the entire Islamic Ummah faced the threat of extinction.

The unity of the Ummah and the unity of the State are the most vital issues in Islam. This is reflected in two issues, namely the multiplicity of the Khulafa’, and the on issue of aggressors. It is reported on the authority of Abu Saeed al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “When an oath of allegiance has been taken for two Khalifas, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.” Hence, Islam made the unity of the State a vital issue by prohibiting the multiplicity of Khulafa’ and ordered the killing of those who attempted to generate such a situation unless they retracted. As for the transgressors, Allah says: “And if two groups of believers fight each other, reconcile between them. But if one group aggresses against the other, fight the aggressing group until it complies with Allah’s rule.” [al-Hujurat-9]. Therefore, once the Imamah for the Muslims is established, i.e., whoever is confirmed as the Khalifa of the Muslims, it would be prohibited to rebel against him as this would lead to dividing the Muslims, shedding their blood, and squandering their wealth; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “so strike with the sword the one who tries to cause separation in the matter of Muslims when they are united, whoever he be.” Hence, those who rebel against the legitimate Imam are transgressors; they would be given a chance to repent and have their conjectures clarified, but if they persist, they should be fought.

By prohibiting multiplicity of the State and rebellion against it, and by prohibiting the dividing of the Ummah, the unity of the State and the Ummah have therefore become part of the vital and decisive issues, as the Legislator has decreed the measure towards them as one of life and death. Those who perpetrate such an act should either retract or get killed. The Muslims did execute such a command in their early eras: the era of the rightly-guided Khulafa’, the Umayyad Khilafah and the Abbasid Khilafah - except Andalusia, and they used to consider it one of the most important and critical issues; they never slackened in taking action against any Muslim irrespective of who he was. The established and confirmed reports on this are innumerable. However, when the Khulafa became weak, and when the understanding of Islam declined, they kept silent over secessions of parts of the Muslims’ lands from the body of the Khilafah; thus, the unity of the Muslims was cleaved and some statelets arose, despite the fact that secession from the body of the State is a vital issue necessitating either a retraction and a return to the body of the State or war, irrespective of the toll and material losses. Evidence from the Book and the Sunnah on the unity of the Ummah being obligatory is abundant. Allah says: “And hold firmly to the rope of Allah, all together, and be not divided.” [al-Imran-103]; and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Verily Allah likes three things for you, and He disapproves three things for you. He is pleased with you that you worship Him and associate none nor anything with Him, that you hold fast to the rope of Allah, and be not divided...”.

Hence, this is a command for the Ummah to hold firmly to the rope of Allah . Moreover, Allah and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited division and rifts since this was the cause of failure, loss of power and the demise of the State. Allah says: “And obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not dispute, lest you falter and lose your courage.” [al-Anfal-46]

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Don't differ, for the nations before you differed and perished." As for the Sahaba, they had a general consensus on what Abu Bakr said about the unity of the Muslims being an obligation and about prohibition of having more than one Emir. None of the Sahaba challenged or disagreed with Abu Bakr when he said: “It is forbidden for the Muslims to have two Emirs. If this were to occur, they would differ in their affairs and their rules; their community would be divided, and they would dispute amongst themselves. Then the Sunnah would be forsaken, Bida’ah would arise and Fitnah would intensify; and no one would benefit from this.”

Islamic history is teeming with events reflecting the value of Muslims’ unity. Here is the Khalifah of the Muslims, Haroun al-Rashid addressing a cloud passing over Baghdad with “Go wherever you wish; you Kharaj will eventually come to me.” When the Muslims were one single majestic Ummah, when one of the limbs suffered, the whole body responded to it with wakefulness and fever, the Abbasid Khalifah al-Mu’tasim mobilised an army to fight the Romans in response to the celebrated cry for help by one Muslim woman “oh my Mu’tasim”. Suffice to also mention the revered position of the Muslims in the international community, even when their Islamic State was at its weakest stage under the rule of the Ottomans and dubbed the “sick man of Europe” by the West. Hence, even during this miserable phase of Muslim history, the Muslims were a force to be reckoned with in the international community due to the unity that encompassed most of the Muslims at that time. One of the missionaries once said that “Europe used to dread the sick man because he had 300 million men ready for Jihad with a snap of his finger.”

The enemies of Islam realised this at the beginning of the modern era. Hence they plotted and adopted various styles to shatter the unity of the Muslims and dismantle their State. One of the pickaxes of destruction used by the enemy for this purpose was spreading the thoughts of patriotism and nationalism among the peoples of the Islamic Ummah. This led to the collapse of the Islamic Khilafah and enabled the colonialists to seize most of the Islamic lands, fragment them into meagre statelets, and then hand them over to the local watchdogs they had groomed to maintain the fragmentation in service of the colonialists’ interests and according to the policy of divide and rule. Hence, they divided the Islamic Ummah into Arab, Turkish, Kurdish, Persian and Amazigh nationalities. In fact the nationalist notion was the tool the Kuffar used to destroy the Islamic State. Then the Arabic-speaking lands were divided into nation States and homelands, such as Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, among other statelets, on the basis of homelands and nationalities. Then the locals of each statelets became the guardians of this fragmentation by eagerly defending those names and what is dubbed homeland and nationality. The criminal process of deception ended with what we are witnessing nowadays in terms of frail statelets that have weakened the Muslims, torn them into shreds and sowed the seeds of animosity among them. The chauvinism of a Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, or Iraqi is no less dangerous than the chauvinism of an Arab, Kurd, Turk, Persian, or Amazigh. The success of this process of deception was unparalleled, and this fragmentation was one of the main causes of weakness and frailty, the continued direct and indirect colonialization of the lands, the loss of lives, resources and riches, and the humiliation and submissiveness we are now enduring.

What ought to be perceived today is that unity on the basis of Islam is the only solution to the weakness, fragmentation and frailty the Ummah is suffering. Unity is the only way towards glory and might, and to rein in the ghoulish powers. Islam is the only path towards freedom and liberation. Hence, it is imperative to unify the ranks, shun our differences, eradicate all forms of fragmentation which colonialism has imposed upon us and dry up its sources, and rise above narrow individualism that descended on Muslims from another culture. It is imperative to make tremendous sacrifices in order to return as we were, one single Ummah and one single State, so that we may regain our grandeur and be witness over humankind, as Allah has wanted her to be: “And so We made you a central nation, that you may be witnesses over humanity, and that the Messenger may be a witness over you” [al-Baqarah-143]; and so that we may regain our status as the best nation sent to humankind: “You are indeed the best nation that has ever been brought forth for mankind: you enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and you believe in Allah.” [Aal-Imran-110].

Some individuals might think that talking of Islamic unity in this current era is implausible and a figment of our imagination due to the palpable reality of the Muslims which is fraught with divisions and differences. The truth is, what made the affairs of this Ummah righteous at the beginning is valid today and at all times to make her affairs righteous again if we were to return and adhere to it, especially as the unity of the Muslims today has become a demand and a necessity imposed by the political challenges, in addition to being a Shari'ah necessity and a vital issue. Hence, it is imperative on every sincere Muslim to perceive that the unity of the Islamic Ummah is a vital issue, and an objective he should strive to achieve. Unifying the Ummah in her thoughts, emotions and systems, unifying her countries within one single entity and smelting them in one single State and under one single authority and one single ruler, such unity according to this concept, is one of the Islamic obligations, just like Salat, Fasting and Jihad. The Muslims would be sinful should they fail to strive assiduously towards fulfilling this obligation, in the same way they would be sinful should they neglect any other Islamic obligation since it is part of the vital issues for the sake of which we ought to sacrifice our lives, wealth, and even our children.

The Qur’an and the Sunnah are the foundation upon which unity between the Muslims should be built. They must be implemented by Muslims individually and collectively in the State and society. This does not mean that if Muslims failed to implement the Qur’an and the Sunnah of their Messenger ﷺ in their life’s affairs, they would not have to establish unity between them. No. Rather the unity between Muslims is an obligation, and establishing the unity on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah is also an obligation, and neither of the two obligations is a condition for the other. The duty is to work towards establishing this unity and towards implementing the Shari'ah of Allah within this unity. Hence, if the unity is established before implementing Shari'ah, the Ummah would have fulfilled one of the obligations and she would be commanded to fulfil the other obligation.

The path towards achieving unity is to strive for it by adhering to the pertinent Shari'ah rules and turning them into an overwhelming public opinion among Muslims, capable of exerting pressure on those who are an obstacle to the endeavour to achieve this obligation, and destroying any notion contradicting it. Hence, fraternity between Muslims on the basis of Islam should be the bond between them irrespective of their colour, race and tongue. Allah says: “Indeed the believers are but brethren.” [al-Hujurat-10]; this was revealed in the context of infighting which could take place between the believers: “Hence, if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between them; but then, if one of the two goes on acting wrongfully towards the other, fight against the one that acts wrongfully until it reverts to Allah’s commandment; and if they revert, make peace between them with justice, and deal equitably: for verily, Allah loves those who act equitably. Indeed all believers are but brethren. Hence, make peace between your two brethren, and remain conscious of Allah, so that you might be graced with His mercy.” [al-Hujurat-9,10]. Hence, the fraternity of Iman should constantly be observed, and its merits should also be always fulfilled, even as the blood is shed. Islam has forbidden the instigation of strife, disputes and haughtiness, and deemed such acts from Jahiliya, i.e., the days of ignorance. It was reported that Abu Tharr al-Ghifari was angered by his servant so he said to him “o son of the black woman”. This reached the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and upon this he said to him: “Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names? You are a person who still has in him the remnants of the days of Jahiliya”.

Islam has called for the abolition of all types of regional and patriotic chauvinism since they are the seeds of division among Muslims. Our Messenger ﷺ said: “And whoever calls with the call of Jahiliya then he is from the coals of Hell." A man said: "O Messenger of Allah! Even if he performs Salat and fasts?" So he ﷺ said: "Even if he performs Salat and fasts. So call with the call that Allah named you with: Muslims, believers, worshippers of Allah.” Although the attribute of Muhajireen and Ansar (emigrants and helpers) quarrelling and bragging on its basis was deemed as call of the days of the repugnant Jahiliya. It was reported on the authority of Jabir bin Abdullah  who said: “We were in an expedition and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari (on the buttocks). The Ansari man said, "O Ansari! (ie Help!)" The emigrant said, "O the emigrants! (Help!)." When Allah's Messenger ﷺ heard that, he said, "What is that?" They said, "A man from the emigrants kicked a man from the Ansar (on the buttocks). On that, the Ansar said, 'O the Ansar!' and the emigrant said, 'O the emigrants!" The Prophet ﷺ said' "Leave it (that call) for it Is a detestable thing." Hence, precedence would only be on the grounds of piety. Allah says: “The best among you before Allah is the most righteous.” [al-Hujurat-13] ; and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of a non-Arab over an Arab, and no superiority of a white person over a black person or of a black person over a white person, except on the basis of personal piety and righteousness.”

The Islamic Ummah shares several unifying factors. She shares the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ. She shares her certain, conclusive, and deeply rooted Iman in Allah, His angels, books, and messengers, and the Day of Judgement. She shares the fraternity of Iman despite the presence of all the attempts at destroying this fraternity. She also shares her one and only viewpoint towards life, namely that it is finite and a pathway rather than a permanent dwelling. The Islamic Ummah shares the concept of Halal and Haram being her criterion of actions in life and that her happiness would be achieved by striving to gain the pleasure of Allah.

She has all the necessary components of unity. She is a youthful nation, vivacious in her thought, blazing with emotions and has her life ahead of her. She is rich in all kinds of faculties, which are huge, formidable and fit for being the benchmark of revival. The Muslims’ lands’ with their prominent geographical location and diverse climates, number of inhabitants and natural resources in terms of waters, arable lands, oil and minerals, are sufficient, together with the magnificent idea that the Ummah embraces, to take them out of poverty and decline and into revival, affluence, and superiority over all other nations and peoples.

Finally, under the Ummah’s current condition of division into States, parties and groups, the major question facing every Muslim is: how can the Ummah be united and how can she bring herself back from oblivion and the State of division to a State of unity, a united voice, and the revival that everyone is craving?

First, it is common knowledge that difference and disputes cannot be abolished or removed. Difference is part of the law of the universe, and those who seek to end it are attempting an unattainable objective, which is not even required in the first instance. The difference we are talking about in this context is the one within the sphere of Islam in terms of understanding its texts according to the rules of comprehension approved by the Muslims, i.e., according to what the indications of its texts may contain based on the linguistic and Shari'ah denotations.

Disparity between people, including scholars, in terms of comprehension is one of the laws of Allah , and difference is an inevitable occurrence because understanding the details of Islam is conjectural with more than one probability and sometimes applying these rules to the pertinent realities after they have been specified could also be subject to difference. This is why the rules of Shurah, leadership, obedience, and the judicial system have been legislated to organise and regulate these differences and to conduct the community as one single unit.

It is also worth noting that this difference – according to the aforementioned precepts – is a healthy and positive matter rather than negative. Difference and diversity of opinions generates thought, ponderation, research, and innovation. It also generates several options for solving human problems, and enriches the legislative wealth within the Ummah. Difference in understanding generates intellectual activity, which is an essential matter for the Ummah and the guarantor of her revival and progress towards perfection.

Hence, it is imperative to perceive that achieving the revival of the Islamic Ummah could only be through adhering to the revelation as the single reference point, implementing Islam in the State and society, conducting her collective willpower according to it, organising her life on its basis, and thus bringing her own independent entity into being, namely the Islamic State, to administer her interests and conduct her affairs according to what she believes in. Consequently, the natural domestic stimulus for progress in all aspects of life will be generated.

This issue is what all the movements, parties and tendencies should be aware of. The point at issue is the Ummah’s awareness of her Islam as an Aqeedah that portrays life in a specific manner, different to Western civilisation that separates religion from life, which is not a point of contention among the Muslims, an Aqeedah that acts as a bond uniting the Muslims and organising their relationship with other nations, which is also not a point of contention, and an Aqeedah linked to all aspects of life, be it in respect of individuals, groups, society or State. And this is also agreed upon among those who believe in the Book and the Sunnah. The criterion of our actions must be Halal and Haram, even if the understandings were varied and multiple. Evidently, Islam can only be implemented through a State, and Jihad is the method to protect the entity of the Ummah and carry the Da’awah to the world. This is how the Ummah will be united.

The awareness of the movements and parties about this issue is what unites them and unifies their viewpoint towards life, the State and society, and makes their presence a positive asset. Such awareness generates the required intellectual activity, places the Ummah, individuals and groups alike, on the track of unity, liberation and revival, making her progress fruitful. Hence, the unity of the Ummah and State will be the construct of an ideology that has come into being within the Ummah, and thus she surges forward to implement it. The Ummah reserves the right to select the most competent and most righteous to serve her, and to proceed behind him to implement Islam; thus, she will exercise her willpower and establish her political entity and protect it, so that it may represent the entire Ummah and her orientations.

23 Ramadhan 1442h
5 May 2021

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Jordan’s Ruling Crisis & National Dialogue 

The Political Direction of the Resistance Leaders 

Turkish Mobster Sedat Peker's Campaign Against AKP & Targeting of Süleyman Soylu 

Muslims’ Lives Matter as Much as Palestinians’ 

Political Observation - Warnings of Political Aggression in the Aftermath of the War 

Political Observation - Halting the Aggression on Gaza 

Political Observation - Current & Expected State of Affairs on the Palestinian Scene  

Implications of Palestinian Scene’s Escalation  

Political Observation - Gaza: Expanding the Confrontation 

Political Observation - Updates on the Palestinian Scene 

Political Observation - Escalation in al-Quds & All Palestinian Cities 

Political Observation - Turkey-Egyptian Rapprochement 

Political Comment - The Unfolding Events in Al-Quds 

Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds 

Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman 

Intellectual Observation - Relativity of Truth: Fictitious, False & Contradicts Religion’s Certainties 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Intellectual Observation - Relativity of Truth: Fictitious, False & Contradicts Religion’s Certainties

It is imperative first and foremost to perceive that the notion of relativism and what emanates from it, such as the concept of “differing perspectives”, is one of the foundations and springboards of the modern reading of Islam which aims to fluidise and subvert Islam, and condition it according to reality. It is also imperative to perceive that this philosophy is closely knit with the political context and the American campaign against Islam and Muslims to distort their identity, modify their religion, efface the boundaries between Islam and Kufr and secularise the mentality of the Muslims, alienating them from their religion and the source of their valour which exhorts them to liberate themselves from cultural and military colonialism while motivating them to seize the initiative, lead the world with guidance and make the Shari'ah of Allah sovereign instead of the elitist manmade sovereignty imposed by corrupt doctrines and wanton states.

The Shari'ah-approved notion of “differing perspectives”, which the preachers of declined values and the champions of reconciliation with Islam’s enemies and congruence with secularism have been attempting to harness and propagate, is restricted to what revelation has brought. Hence, if the text is lucid and conclusive, there should be no Ijtihad or differing opinions; whereas if the text or its ratio legis, i.e., its manat, is doubtful, it is permitted to have various opinions within the probable denotations of the ratio legis and the text, for if the opinion is based on a text, everything it indicates is deemed to be Shari'ah-based. Therefore, even if the understanding of scholars is human, the opinion deduced from the text with their understanding is a Shari'ah-based opinion and it would be prohibited to reject it without a valid argument or under the pretext of being a human understanding. There is a difference between initiating the Shari'ah rule and understanding the text and deducing the rule of Allah from it. For instance, when Allah says: “or you have touched women, and cannot find water, find clean sand,” [an-Nisa-43], this is an initiation of the rule, whereas the saying of al-Shafi’ that touching with the palm of the hand nullifies one’s wudu (ablution), and the saying of Abu Hanifah that it does not nullify it, these are understandings of what the discourse may denote; it is a deduction of the rule of Allah from the text and not an initiation of the rule of “touching”. The understanding of al-Shafi’ and Abu Hanifah cannot be described as the rule of Allah , because the rule of Allah is what the text indicates in a conclusive manner, and the fact that the text carries more than one potential meaning, this does not negate the reality that what Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’ deduced are Shari'ah rules obtained from the text according to the denotation of the expression “you have touched”, which is open to to more than one understanding. And those who reject such opinions under the pretext they are obtained from the understandings of humans, they are in fact forestalling the implementing of Shari'ah; it is imperative to take the rules from humans who must be qualified to understand and deduce them, be it from a Sahabi, a Tabi’i (successor) or those who came after them, and be it from al-Shafi’, Abu Hanifah or others.

Understanding the texts does not require a prophet or an angel; it rather requires knowledge in the sciences of language and Shari'ah. Those who interpret the texts according to their opinions rather than according to the Shari'ah facts of the Qur’an and the established facts of the Arabic language, since Allah says “We have revealed it an Arabic Quran” [Yusuf- 2], they have then innovated in the language and in religion, because religion is taken from revelation rather than reason, and because language is an issue of a set of expressions whose denotations must not be changed; these have to be taken by way of transmission from those whose statements are an authority in the foundation of the language, such as the pure Arabs, i.e., the Qahtani, or the Arabised Arabs i.e., the Adnanites, up until the fourth century of hijra before the tongue was distorted. It would be wrong for reason and experiment to determine its denotations, since it is an issue of terminology and fixed expressions. Imam Fakhreddin al-Razi wrote: “the way to cognising the language is but through sheer transmission, as is the case with most of the linguistic aspects, or through the deduction of reason from transmission. For instance, if it is transmitted to us that a defined plural includes exception, and that exception means excluding what the expression encompasses, we can then deduce through these two transmissions that the plural forms denote generality. However, this is not within the scope of sheer reason.”

As for the notion of “differing perspectives” in secularism and liberal democracy, it is unrestricted despite claims otherwise, because it is built on “relative truth”, freedom, and human centrality, which necessitates the centrality of the other. This is because secularism and liberal democracy are philosophically built on “natural law”, i.e., on human centrality, in determining interests and passing judgement on actions and things as being pleasant or repugnant.

Human centrality necessitates the centrality of the other by virtue of equality, which theoretically, gives the other opinion some consideration, irrespective of soundness and error. The origin of this narrative is Sophistic philosophy and its pioneer is Protagoras. Sophistry overlays the truth with falsehood, raises suspicions in Muslims about their religion, equates Islam with distorted and false religions, leads to fragmenting society and endorses pluralism, compromise and pragmatism, and turns Islam into just another option; and this is what the modernists and the hardcore sophists who believe in hylotheism have adopted.

The centrality of the other leads inevitably towards compromise, i.e., “concession”, which Aristotle refers to as the golden mean between the two parties and involves the stakeholders conceding part of their stance to reach an agreement between them. Accordingly, some philosophers derived the Social Contract, which involves the transferring of right to a mutually recognised authority according to Hobbes or conceding to the general will according to Rousseau. In this sense, centrality is shifted from revelation to the individual, the state and the masses who consequently become sovereign.

In fact, the notion of compromise does not tally with doctrinal and moral issues because morals are indivisible and doctrines are built on certitude in either negating or ascertaining, and there is no middle-of-the-road between them. This is also contrary to Islam which attributes determining the interests and passing judgement on actions and things without seeking expediency for itself, and gives centrality to Shari’ah, i.e., revelation.

Relativism, or “cognitive relativity”, invites on itself a falsehood involving inconsistency and conflict of opposites. It has several schools of thought, such as those who embrace the fact that there is no truth, and those who judge the truth as being multiple; and this is false because truth is conformity to reality, i.e., the conformity of the thought to reality, which to Muslims is one and the same. This is because reality outside the mind is one and if the truth were diverse, it would then be plausible to have a unity of opposites, which is rationally impossible.

The issue of relativism in respect of truth or in respect of ethics is philosophical; its function is to cause controversy, confusion, and incapacitation, and turn thoughts into riddles and mysteries. Cognitive relativity claims that scientific facts, ethical values, legislative principles, and social and political systems, are all prone to variation and change according to time and place, and thus, what was true yesterday could today or tomorrow turn false. The purpose behind this claim, which was borrowed from sophistic philosophy in ancient times and from the European secularist culture that challenges religion in recent times, is to justify the historicism of knowledge, and confine the Islamic Shari'ah to the era of revelation and sever its links to the present by relying on sophistry, dialectical argument and experimental science, such as quantum mechanics to justify the unity of opposites.

The sophistic philosophy that produced relativism was refuted by Socrates and the scholars of Islam, but was resuscitated by the Europeans who harnessed it in their struggle against the church and religious thought with the aim of destroying them. It is based on the uncertainty principle and according to the theorist of sophists, Protagoras, it departs from the notion alleging that man is the criterion of all things. In other words, man determines the intellectual and legislative facts, as well as the values, and he reserves the right to amend or annul them, that things do not have one single truth in themselves and the truth of things is determined according to how each individual views it and believes it to be. If he were to judge the existence or the absence of a thing, then his judgement would be related to him rather than to the thing itself; and thus, the world would be sempiternal for those who believe in its sempiternity, and created for those who believe it was created, which implies that passing judgement on the one single thing may differ from one person to another, i.e., the truth is what falls under one’s direct senses rather than the senses of another individual. Consequently, the truth become relative and changes according to the change of individuals, place and time. This is precisely why they do not give weight to reports, heritage, and previous opinions, and do not give the understandings of scholars any consideration. The truth of the matter is that they do not distinguish between passing judgement on the existence of the thing, and passing judgement on its essence or quality; whereas in fact, that which is related to the existence of the thing, as is the case in doctrinal issues, these are conclusive thoughts and established truths; and that which is related to passing judgement on the reality of the thing or its quality, as is the case in Shari'ah rules, these are doubtful and relative thoughts, but nevertheless they remain sound until proved otherwise.

The issue of relativism is deliberately evoked by the liberal modernists and secularists, and the deniers of the Sunnah in an attempt to induce Muslims into questioning their religion and to dismantle their certitude as part of a dubious campaign tightly linked to the plots of the enemies of Islam and the Muslims. This campaign is designed to place the Muslims before an evil duplicity: either they remove the boundaries between Islam and Kufr, open the floodgates for abusing the religion of Allah and conditioning it with modern European culture, abandon their animosity towards the colonialist Kuffar and criminalise those who resist the regimes affiliated to them; or remain behind the times, regress and disintegrate according to their allegations.

The Muslims who reiterate the opinions of the modernists on relativism and what it involves in terms of denotations that places the truth in other than Islam on an equal footing with Islam and casts doubt on the truth of Islam, are being driven towards Kufr; Allah says:

“We have sent you with the truth—bringing good news, and giving warnings. You will not be questioned about the inmates of Hell.” [al-Baqarah-119];

“But your people rejected it, though it is the truth. Say, “I am not responsible for you.” [al-An’am-66];

“It is He who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth.” [at-Tawbah-33];

“Say, “O people, the truth has come to you from your Lord.” [Yunus-108];

“What is revealed to you from your Lord is the truth.” [ar-Ra’d-1];

“And say: The truth is from your Lord.” [al-Kahf-29];

“What We inspired in you, of the Book, is the truth.” [Fatir-31]

Based on the aforementioned in terms of elucidating the fallacy of relativism and its contradiction with the certainties of religion, it would be possible to refer to the abundant books of the Islamic library, and to the documented sound studies that convey the responses of the scholars to the philosophers and the deviant sects. The Muslim scholars refute the claims of the champions of relativism. For instance, Ibnu Hazm wrote in his book titled Kitab al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa-al-Ahwa' wa-al-Nihal (The Book of Decisive Judgement on Creeds, Desires, and Sects), describing those who champion relativism such as the sophistic sect of al-Indiyah with “The thing does not become true according to he who believes it to be true, and it does become false according to he who believes it to be false. Rather, the things become true by being firmly in existence, irrespective of whether it is believed to be true or false. If it were other than this, it would be existent and non-existent at the same time, which would indeed be implausible.”

Ibnul Jawzi for his part wrote in his book titled Talbis Ibliss, (The Ruses of Satan)on page 41: “Those are of the sophists’ type; if it is said to them: is your statement sound? They would say it is sound to us and false for our opponents. Upon which we said: your claim suggesting that your statement is sound is refuted, and your acknowledgement that your school of thought is false according to your opponents constitutes an argument against yourself. He who testifies that his statement is false from one aspect has in fact spared his opponent of the burden of proving the falsehood of his school of thought.”

Moreover, Ibnu Qudamah wrote: “How could sempiternity and creation of the world, the believing and denying of the Messenger, the existence of the thing and its nonexistence, be true? These are subjective matters which do not follow the belief, but rather the belief follows them.

Ibnu Taymiyah for his part wrote: “It is related that some sophists have made all the doctrines the influencing elements in the beliefs and have not established any fixed truths for the things; sometimes the belief conforms to it and at other times, contradicts it. In fact, they have attributed the truth to everything in which the believer has believed and made the truths subordinates of the beliefs. Such a statement in its generality and non-restrictiveness cannot be attributed to someone with a sound mind.”

Hence, what some people say regarding relativism leads to refuting the truths of Islam and the firmly established ayat of the noble Qur’an.

12 Ramadhan 1442h
24 April 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Killing of Chad's President Idriss Déby

On Tuesday 20 April the Chadian army announced that President Idriss Déby had been fatally wounded. Army spokesperson Gen. Azim Bermando Aguna announced soon after that Idriss Déby "breathed his last defending the sovereign nation on the battlefield”; it was alleged he had been visiting the Chadian troops battling rebels belonging to a group calling itself the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT) in northern Chad near the borders with Libya. According to a report on the Washington Post website, details of Idriss Déby’s killing remained ambiguous.

The incident occurred amidst a struggle between on the one hand the leader of FACT Mohammed Mahdi Ali, and Yaya Dillo Djérou, the leader of the opposition who was the target of an assassination plot by Idriss Déby two months ago, and on the other hand Idriss Déby who had been loyal to the US, despite maintaining friendly relations with France due to cultural considerations targeting those with Islamic tendencies in Chad and the African continent.

In order to perceive the context in which the incident took place to get rid of Idriss Déby, it is imperative to indicate that France, and despite her shrinking influence in favour of the US, she still maintains her presence on Chad's political scene and in the Francophone countries of Africa due to the cultural ties and the security and economic interests which she defends through her military bases and some adventurous and ambitious collaborators. It is also imperative to take into account the fact that Germany has been striving to take advantage of Joe Biden’s penchant for cooperation, alliance, and the style of soft power in dealing with the European states, and has been endeavouring to reduce the tension with Russia in order to resume their joint energy projects; this prompted Washington to harass German Chancellor Angela Merkel and demonise her to the advantage of her rivals within her party, and to ignite the Ukrainian front in order to aggravate the negative vibes between Moscow and Berlin. Moreover, France has also exploited Biden’s approach, with Macron attempting to consolidate France’s position in her traditional areas of influence and secure French interests independently from America's shackles, a move to which the Biden administration responded by exerting further pressure and instigating further problems which France could never solve without America’s assistance, such as the issues of Ukraine, the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, and the rift with Turkey. In addition to all of this, the US removed President Idriss Déby, who was flexible with France in Chad, and routed France’s agents in Tunisia and Algeria, such as divulging the relationship of Tunisian President Kais Saied with France and then exposing his old relationship with the CIA, thus stripping him of his popular support and driving him to visit Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi without any specific agenda and without signing any agreement with Egypt, but merely to seek support and to flirt with America; and upon his return to Tunis, he attempted to lead on the Tunisian army in confronting his opponents through his speeches, visits and repeated incitement of the armed forces.

Hence, we can perceive in this context the removal of Chadian President Idriss Déby by America in the same manner she pursued Congolese President Kabila whom she had backed and warned his predecessor President Mobuto by threatening to drag him through the streets of Kinshasa should he fail to hand over the reins of power to Kabila who eventually switched camps and pledged his allegiance to France during his visit to Paris, which prompted America to instruct one of his bodyguards to kill him and handed power over to his son.

America probably did away with Idriss Déby on 20 April hours after it had been announced that he had won a sixth presidential term and appointed his son Mohammed as his successor via the army. She also got rid of Mali’s president a while back to place Macron in a precarious domestic position; French newspaper Le Figaro commented on the loss of Mali by saying “the political coup in Bamako represents a setback for the French operation, and consequently, Paris’s entire strategy should be reviewed.”

America’s targeting of French interests is designed to rebuke French President Macron, deter him from exceeding his boundaries, especially in respect of NATO and his attempts to free Europe’s security from the shackles of the US, and to rein in the designs of France who had bankrolled an army of mercenaries in Mali, just like she did in the Biafra region when she secretly armed the locals to break away from Nigeria, in an attempt to undermine US influence in Africa at that time.

However, this does not mean that France is jostling with the US over the international situation because the strength of the superpowers is manifested in their influence on world politics. The US President would only have to issue a statement to attract the attention of the rest of the world in anticipation of what his statement would generate, whereas countries like China, Russia, France and Britain could scream all day without anyone batting an eyelid due to their inability to execute their willpower save within their lebensraums and in a lukewarm manner. Hence, it is America who most probably plotted this coup which led to the demise of her agent Idriss Déby in order to curb France’s influence in Chad, especially as Mohammed Idriss Déby who has succeeded his father in office enjoys a strong relationship with the US; it is also clear that the speed in which he assumed power and in which the pertinent arrangements were executed was designed to circumvent any potential power vacuum and dissuade the French-backed opposition from pursuing the fight and entering the capital N’djamena.

An interim military council was formed and parliament and the government were dissolved despite the contradiction of these actions to Chad's constitution which stipulates that speaker of parliament assumes power for 45 days should the post of president becomes vacant, and afterwards, general elections would be held. Evidently, the continuance of cancer stricken Idriss Déby in power could whet France’s appetite to oust him. Hence, America carried out this precautionary measure to secure her interests in respect of the Chadian domestic scene and its impacts on Mali, Libya and Sudan, and in respect of Africa as a whole, exactly as she has always resorted to with regard to doing away with her agents in anticipation of their sudden departures, as was the case with the Shah of Iran after he had been diagnosed with cancer, or for reasons dictated by her interests and policies that she devises to deter her opponents or those averse to her policies. The fall of the agents who are even seemingly friendly towards France, such as Idriss Déby, would muzzle the political elites and military forces in the African continent and dissuade them from thinking about having close ties with France at the expense of the US.

In order to provide the new military council in Chad with a political cover, America instructed the countries of the Sahel and the Sahara to express their total support for the interim phase. This came after the head of the military council and the current Chadian president Mohammed Idriss Déby met the head of the African Union Commission (AUC) and reviewed with him the roadmap of the interim phase, despite the understanding reached between the African states to reject any regime seizing power through a military coup.

It is true that France mentioned in a statement that she was committed to the stability of Chad and to its regional security, and stressed the importance of a peaceful transfer of power following the demise of president Idriss Déby, but she failed to openly support the interim military council. She merely mentioned that she had been informed that an interim body had been formed to achieve a political transfer of power, whereas the reaction of the US to the new situation was customary, which indicates that the US was behind the issue in its entirety.

 

10 Ramadhan 1442h
22 April 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Aims of the Russia-Ukraine Escalation

The Russo-Ukrainian crisis erupted yet again about a month ago after the two countries had traded accusations of violating the ceasefire agreement concluded between them, although violations by both sides have never stopped.

This latest escalation came after President Joe Biden took office at the White House and upped the ante in his dealings with Russia. It also came ahead of the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in the middle of this month, and in light of America’s endeavours to admit Ukraine into NATO, with the Ukrainian president persisting to join at the height of the crisis, due to Germany and France’s previous aversion to Ukraine’s membership.

It is in this context that the recent escalation between Russia and Ukraine is perceived, especially as America’s strategy to uproot Russia’s influence in Ukraine is not a spur-of-the-moment decision; it was rather expressed during President Jimmy Carter’s tenure by his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote in his book titled “The Grand Chessboard” that “without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.” It was also expressed vehemently by Russian President Putin who said: “I gave an example of our most recognisable symbol. It is a bear protecting his taiga. You see, if we continue the analogy, sometimes I think that maybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone. But no, he won’t be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he’s chained, they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over. And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they’ll stuff it and that’s all. Therefore, Crimea is not the point at issue; we are defending our independence, sovereignty, and our right to exist. And this is what we all should realise.”

This is exactly what America did through the Ukrainian revolution that toppled Russian-affiliated president Yankovic and brought in US agent Viktor Yushchenko. This infuriated President Vladimir Putin who deemed America’s attempts to lure Ukraine as a threat to Russian influence and to him personally, and reacted by annexing the Crimean Peninsula and falling into the trap laid for him by America who had wanted to terrify Europe of the Russian military threat and to impose on Russia a catalogue of sanctions to keep her as an enemy of Europe and NATO and to justify the continuance of the latter. And this is why America’s position vis-à-vis the current crisis was escalatory and inflammatory in favour of Ukraine, unlike the European position which favoured containment of the crisis to avert any aggravation, despite Europe’s stance being in accord with the American position.

As for Russia, she wants to maintain the status quo and avert the eruption of a new war or a military conflict, especially as she is attempting to rebuild her relationship with the EU via direct contacts with Merkel and Macron. However, she is also attempting to strengthen her position on the ground in order to annex east Ukraine should Europe acquiesce to America’s volition and admit Ukraine into NATO. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Andrey Rudenko, said Russia had “no interest in any conflict with Ukraine”, adding that “the talk of a potential conflict between the two countries is sheer media deception propagated by the Kiev authorities.” He also stressed that his country’s efforts were aimed at implementing the Minsk Protocol under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

As for her long-term strategy, Russia is banking on fragmenting Ukraine and separating her east and southeast via a referendum, just like she did in Crimea, in order to maintain a strategic position in the Black Sea, while the European states, especially France and Germany who have previously opposed Ukraine’s NATO membership, are attempting to defuse the situation in the hope of nullifying the pretexts of America who has been blackmailing them to abort their joint vital projects such as Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, from which America has recently demanded Germany to withdraw; US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “the Russian Nord Stream 2 is a bad deal — for Germany, for Ukraine, and for our Central and Eastern European allies and partners,” adding that “the Department is tracking efforts to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and is evaluating information regarding entities that appear to be involved…. As multiple U.S. administrations have made clear, this pipeline is a Russian geopolitical project intended to divide Europe and weaken European energy security. The Biden Administration is committed to complying with that legislation. The Department reiterates its warning that any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks U.S. sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline.”

On another level, America has been working on consolidating ties between Turkey and Ukraine and to throw Turkey into the morass of the Russo-Ukrainian struggle to sow seeds of tension and strife between Russia and Turkey, especially since Ukraine represents a significant strategic weight for Russia due to a host of ethnic, sectarian, geopolitical and strategic considerations. Orthodox Slavic Ukraine is the first line of defence for Russia. She separates her from the NATO member states. Therefore, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was very cautious when he commented on the need to solve the Russo-Ukrainian crisis through peaceful means, so as to please the US on the one hand, and not upset Russia on the other hand. Erdoğan stated that his role was “not directed towards any other country”, and he was hinting at Russia. He also expressed his willingness to mediate between Russia and Ukraine to gain some bargaining chips with Russia. He said his country hoped that “the escalation in east Ukraine will end as soon as possible and that the conflict will be settled through dialogue on the grounds of the Minsk Protocol.” He also stressed the need to allow the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) to pursue its work in order to achieve stability in the Donbas region, and expounded that Turkey’s main objective was to maintain the Black Sea as an oasis of peace, stability and cooperation, as he realised that an aggravation of the crisis would compel Turkey to fulfil her commitments towards NATO, and thus impinging it significantly on the confidence between him and Putin, and weakening their relationship and their understanding on the Syrian file and the Kurdish issue in particular; and this is exactly what America covets.

Hence, Ukraine is one of the hotbeds of tension America has been banking on in her targeting of the Russo-Turkish relationship on the one hand, and Europe’s relationship with Russia on the other hand. Inasmuch as forestalling the solutions for the Ukrainian crisis being a Russian strategy on which she is banking to fragment Ukraine, it also serves America’s strategy in orchestrating the relationships between the stakeholders, namely Russia, Europe, and Turkey.

However, perpetuating the struggle could compel Europe to acquiesce to America’s hellbent desire to admit Ukraine into NATO; this is deduced from the statement of the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, who expressed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the “EU’s member states unwavering support for Ukraine,” adding that “the EU is united in its solidarity with Ukraine,” and that the Russian comportment on the Ukrainian borders was “tantamount to threatening activities that undermined stability.” He also confirmed that he would attend the Crimea Summit” to be held in Kiev on the eve of Ukraine’s celebrations of Independence Day on 23 August.

The European acquiescence was also reflected in the Baltic states’ support for Ukraine’s calls for “effective help”, and in the closing statement of the NATO’s foreign and defence ministers emergency meeting, which denounced Russian military mobilisation on Ukraine’s borders, and called for supporting US sanctions on Russia who was accused of “pursuing stereotypical behaviour that undermined stability.”

Irrespective of the traded accusations between the Russians and the Ukrainians in respect of the side that initiated the escalation, the provocations of the Ukrainian authorities against the opposition linked to Russia, shutting down pro-Russian satellite channels, and deploying US and NATO forces in Ukraine, was received by Russia with suspicion, especially as they came after the change of guard at the White House and as Biden began to raise the stakes within the framework of tightening the noose around Putin and his clique, mobilising Europe against Russia because of her annexation of Crimea, on which Ukraine, in collusion with America, is planning to hold a conference in August and use as a pretext to extend Western sanctions on Russia. This warranted an increase of Russian military presence on the Eastern Ukrainian borders in anticipation of any Ukrainian threats against the separatist regions. Trenching upon Russia would weaken her international standing and embolden the countries of the region against her that Russia could never stomach or tolerate; being lenient and lethargic towards the challenges and threats would eventually erode her influence further and invite the crises inside Russia, and this is what the Russians suffered during the tenure of Boris Yeltsin and the Chechen issue. The US strategy in dealing with Russia often results in negative impacts on the Russo-European relationship despite Russia’s repeated attempts to dispel the fears of the Europeans; this is what the US has been exploiting to widen the rift between Europe and Russia on the one hand, and between Russia and Turkey, who is allied with Ukraine, on the other hand. This perhaps explains the US sanctions on Turkey’s defence industry and the green light given to Ukraine to conclude a host of strategic partnerships in the defence industry with Turkey.

Therefore, the Ukrainian crisis is a continuance of the siege laid on Russia and a direct threat to her lebensraum. Escalation on the western front with Russia is designed to sidestep France and Germany’s attempt to ease tensions with Russia, especially as Germany is still involved with Russia on a host of energy projects designed to reinforce Europe’s dependence on Russia, strengthen their relationship and dispel their security fears, contrary to the wishes of the US who has been striving to generate intensive negative vibes between Europe and Russia instigated by Britain and her agents in eastern Europe, such as the recent expulsion of the Russian diplomats from the Czech republic to justify the continuance of NATO.

Hence, the focal issue revolves around European security and the role of the US pertinent to it via NATO. In the US Defence Planning Guidance of 1992, it was stipulated that America should endeavour to prevent the emergence of a European defence capability which would wipe out NATO, especially the integrated structure of the Alliance leadership. This is why on the eve of the NATO summit, Ukrainian defence minister alleged in his address before the European Defence Committee at the European Parliament that Russia was preparing to “stockpile nuclear weapons in Crimea” citing the preparatory works for the infrastructure in Crimea that Russia has initiated, which was deemed a direct threat to European security.

7 Ramadhan 1442h
19 April 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

Saudi Peace Initiative in Yemen & Tinkering with Muslims’ Blood 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - Saudi Peace Initiative in Yemen & Tinkering with Muslims’ Blood

Bin Salman thought that by receiving the green light from America to wage the war of “Legitimacy” in Yemen, after he had conspired to hand Sana over to the Houthis, prevented the Yemeni Congregation for Reform from investing in the Arab Spring, proceeded in dividing Yemen and separating the south with the collusion of the UAE according to the American project, in addition to his belief that he would swiftly settle the battle, he would improve his chances of inheriting the throne from his father.

It would be imperative to indicate in this context that the issue of the Saudi regime with the “Sunni” is greater than its issue with the “Shia”, who provide the “Salafi” institution hostile to them with the pretext to back Aal Saud, considering that any representation of the “Sunni” world and its religious authority stretching beyond the Saudi leadership is deemed a threat to the Saudi regime which derives its legitimacy from it. This is despite the fact that the regime’s effective backing comes from the US, the inheritor of British influence in the region, and upon whose behalf Aal Saud rule and depend in power through protecting her interests. Therefore, they conspired to topple Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi and labelled the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation. They also conspired to let the Houthis dominate Yemen lest the Yemeni Congregation for Reform should extend its influence and set about curbing the authority of religion in the kingdom and establishing a modernist legitimacy compatible with the American initiative based on dismantling the cultural system of the people of the region.

Bin Salman thought he could settle the battle in Yemen within weeks and use it as a bridge to power, just as Putin did in Chechenia. However, the US extended the war for six years during which hundreds of thousands lost their lives through killing, starvation and infectious disease in order to deepen societal division, split Yemen and harness it for her political agenda for the Horn of Africa and the Bab el-Mandab Strait and subsequently exploit it to blackmail Saudi for liberal openness and material interests, just as Donald Trump did. Bin Salman squandered hundreds of billions of dollars which led to reducing Saudi’s cash surplus by approximately $300 billion, in addition to the political services he offered to the US projects in Egypt and Sudan, and the contributions he made to the regional solution and the oil price war to deplete Russia’s capabilities. All this was in exchange for acceding to the throne.

As Joe Biden took office and adopted democratic values and human rights as the cornerstone of US foreign policy, and decided to exploit them as a pretext to meddle in the affairs of other states, impose US policies on them through the gates of the bogus human values, end the Yemeni war and call bin Salman to account for assassinating Khashoggi, bin Salman swiftly acclimatised himself with this trend, released the activist Loujain al-Hathloul, though he kept those with Islamic tendencies in detention, and announced his initiative to end the war and bring peace to Yemen via “diplomatic” means. His initiative included easing the siege on the seaport of al-Hudaydah and allowing the reopening of Sana’s airport for a limited number of direct regional and international destinations. The Houthi group rejected this initiative with the backing of Iran who is still using all the cards in her possession to gain America’s pleasure within her own vision of her functional role rather than America’s vision for the current phase and its requirements vis-à-vis the regional solution and the Arab-"Israel" normalisation, which led to aggravating the situation in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

As a result of the role undertaken by the Houthis in Yemen, and by letting them target Saudi with missiles and drones, they started to think they were a regional force and a tough nut to crack in the equation of political jostling; this induced America to ensnare them in Marib when the Biden administration revoked their designation as a terrorist group and turned a blind eye to their onslaught on Marib. Hence, it allowed Saudi to use her sophisticated weapons to shell the positions and fortifications of the Houthis with immaculate precision, unlike in the previous years of the war, which led to inflicting heavy losses on Houthi forces as they attempted to control the strategic mountainous positions of the Marib governorate. America then went on to tighten the noose around the neck of the Houthis by expanding the battlefront in the areas of Taiz, Ibb, al-Jawf, al-Hujjah and Sa’ada, while she bulwarked the forces of “Legitimacy” to repel the Houthi attack on Marib and force them to dispatch fighting reinforcements that led to weakening their presence in other northern governorates; consequently, Taiz fell to the forces of Legitimacy and was merged with al-Hudaydah, and the tribes turned on the Houthis.

The US’s tendency to compel the Houthis to comply to American dictates is reflected in the statement of Timothy Lenderking, the U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, who announced that he had made a proposal for a ceasefire which the Houthis rejected, saying “tragically, and somewhat confusingly for me, it appears that the Houthis are prioritizing a military campaign to take #Marib”.

This tendency is further corroborated by the US, British, French, German and Italian condemnation of the Houthis constant attacks on the city of Marib and Saudi lands; and all this falls under the attempt to generate a pretext for US and international public opinion and avert embarrassment when dealing with bin Salman, for whom Blinken had announced the need to deal with. It also falls under America’s endeavours to clip the wings of Iran’s surrogates and dwarf their role in the region, loosen the Houthis’ strong ties with Iran and at the same time, strengthen their link with Timothy Lenderking, the U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen, and push the Houthis to engage in the negotiations leading to “generating a political solution to the Yemeni crisis under the auspices of the United Nations” as per UN Security Council resolution 2564, the Gulf States’ initiative and its executive mechanism, the upshots of the Yemeni National Dialogue Conference, one of which stipulates dividing Yemen into governorates within a federal framework.

Hence, the US, France, Germany, Italy and the UK announced in a joint statement issued by the British Foreign Office that their “renewed diplomatic efforts to end the Yemen conflict, in support of the UN Special Envoy, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the international community, offer the best hope for ending this war.” Therefore, the Saudi initiative indicates that the US has been exerting pressure on the Houthis to end the war. However, the Houthis’ desire to achieve more gains on the ground in Marib and their fear of losing their acquisitions, coupled with their attempt to control the oil and gas resources and to maintain their control of al-Hudaydah seaport in order to use this as a bargaining chip in the final negotiations, all this has tilted the scales of power on the ground in favour of Saudi and contrary to what the Houthis had wished. The Houthis reacted by leaking the telephone conversation indicating America’s collusion with former president Abdullah Saleh on the issue of former al-Qaeda senior operative Anwar al-Awlaki, in order to embarrass the US side and haggle with them over the treacherous role Abdullah Saleh played on behalf of the CIA, in exchange for alleviating US pressure and maintaining their gains. This explains why the Houthis’ spokesperson rejected the US proposal, i.e., the Saudi initiative, deeming it a “conspiracy” and saying that “what the US envoy referred to as a proposal does not contain anything new; it represents the one-year-old Saudi and UN vision. There is no end to the siege nor a ceasefire, but rather a host of token circumventions leading to the return of the sieve in a diplomatic manner.” He added “for the US envoy to propose a plan short of what the UN envoy has proposed is unacceptable. They will achieve through negotiations what they have failed to achieve through the war.”

It is forbidden to remain silent or partake in the crime perpetrated by the Houthis, Saudi rulers, and Iran who have all embroiled the children of the Ummah in treacherous cheap wars that have depleted their riches and shed their blood. Hundreds of thousands of victims lost their lives and tens of billions of dollars have gone to the coffers of the US and her partners for the sake of bin Salman’s throne and the sectarianism and expediency of the Houthis.

The US and her partners are calling for an end to the war now that they have filled their coffers with the finances of the Muslims. According to “Middle East Eye”, the value of arms sales exceeded 55 times the humanitarian aid given to the people of Yemen, which is equal to $86.7 billion worth of arms sales and merely $1.56 billion of humanitarian aid, which equates to 1.8% of the arms deals’ value according to reports published in 2015-2016 by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI also reported that America sold $65 billion worth of weapons during the war Saudi waged on the Houthis under the tenure of king Abdullah between 2009 and 2016, while the humanitarian aid for same period was $305 million. As for France, she concluded a number of deals with Saudi totalling $11.3 billion and offered $12.3 million in humanitarian aid. Britain for her part sold $4.85 billion worth of weapons and offered $733 million in aid. Meanwhile, the people in Yemen lost their lives due to starvation, infectious diseases and a war waged with the weapons of the Kuffar and the wealth of the Muslims who kept silent over the evildoing and treason of their rulers.

Dear Muslims! Is there a more poignant reminder than the tinkering of the rulers with your fates? You have no salvation save for the unity that the blessed month of Ramadhan reminds us of every year. Hence, we urge you to work towards achieving your union through the fraternity of Islam and the unity of your entity; and do not be at variance with one another, lest you lose heart and your moral strength deserts you, and respond to Allah and His Messenger when they call you to what gives you life.

19 Sha’aban 1442h
1 April 2021  

hizbuttahrir.org

The Sino-Iranian Agreement 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Sino-Iranian Agreement

The memorandum of understanding between China and Iran signed on Saturday 27 March is clearly a continuation of the Go West policy devised by Chinese President Xi Jinping, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, this policy involves several steps that need elucidating, including the Chinese influence that is set to achieve an economic interest worth over $400 billion over the next 25 years during which China is guaranteed low-priced imports of Iranian oil and gas.

According to public data, Iran is in desperate need for huge investments totalling $200 billion in the energy sector alone after all the years of US sanctions and having squandered significant funds in serving America’s initiatives in the region. America’s silence over an agreement of such magnitude reflects her approval amid Iran’s disappointment with the Biden administration despite Iran’s continued contribution to the initiatives of the US, and amid the escalating Sino-American struggle in the context of China’s bid to defend her global economic interests and her adherence to her secluded political and intellectual system which America has been unable to infiltrate, and amid the approaches of the Iranian regime which is facing an electoral battle next May as the political opposition continues to invest in the wretched economic and political situation, and the approaches of the US who relishes the unique and beneficial Chinese initiatives which may seem as escalation and jostling for influence in the Middle East, including the Iranian nuclear file and the Palestinian issue. All this is well known to observers to be in the interests of the US in terms of harnessing China in the “war of models” and turning her into a paper tiger “threatening” the US, thus warranting a tendency to heal domestic rifts and rally the democratic capitalist states and the countries of southeast Asia behind the US. It also turns China into a rival to Europe in the most important regions with European vital interests, namely the Middle East and Africa; this in turn would deepen the Europeans’ dependence on the US. This narrative was expressed by Joe Biden last week when he called on democratic states to face up to China and her intercontinental projects.

In a nutshell, the Sino-Iranian memorandum of understanding has dealt the European efforts to return to the US-Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 a heavy blow and corroborated the themes America has outlined in respect of the relationship with China, as well as the American vision vis-à-vis the Chinese threats on Europe. The memorandum has also implicitly called on Europe to respond to the American dictates.

On the other hand, once the memorandum of understanding is implemented, it will enable Iran to get an outlet from the US sanctions and would increase the credentials of the ruling reformist movement in Iran in the May 2021 elections. This explains the scathing attack by the leaders of the conservative movement, such as Ahmadinejad, on the memorandum of understanding.

The effective and radical role Iran has been playing in serving the American initiative is conspicuous. She has been acting as the scarecrow that has pushed the countries of the region to overtly throw themselves into the embrace of the usurping entity and facilitated its security, economic and military integration into the region. It is also imperative to perceive that the Iranian role will not end with Saudi’s normalisation and with the clipping of the Iranian surrogates’ wings; if anything, the continuance of the Mullahs’ regime on the political scene constitutes an American necessity in the middle-term to continue exerting pressure on the regimes to complete the steps of Arab-"Israeli" integration and the reshaping of the Middle East. This is clearly reflected in the deliberate extension of the diplomatic activity with Iran over the sanctions and in America’s announcement that she intends to add the demands of the allies and partners to any long-term agreement. Hence, any Sino-Iranian agreement may be viewed within the context of rescuing Iran financially, keeping her on the road to recovery and helping her avert collapse, projecting Chinese activity as a geopolitical rival to America and accusing China of helping rogue states such as Venezuela, Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. In addition to the US interests, the memorandum serves the American initiative that calls for liberal democracy, and Western values. This was indicated by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who said “China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system.”

Moreover, America’s decision to pave the way for China’s escalation and for what looks like a Chinese invasion of the Middle East and Africa would shore up the policy of alliances that Biden called for during his inaugural address in order to contain the Europeans who were dubbed by the official spokesperson of China’s foreign ministry as “America’s allies” on the one hand, and contain Russia and China on the other; this would enable America to harness all sides to operate within her international initiative to ensure her leadership over them.

18 Sha’aban 1442
31 March 2021

hizbuttahrir.org 

The New START Treaty 

Political Observation - The Giant Container Ship Incident & the Suez Canal Crisis 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Giant Container Ship Incident & the Suez Canal Crisis

World media outlets reported on Tuesday 23 March 2021 that the giant container ship Ever Green which had set sail from Malaysia, got wedged diagonally in the Suez Canal. This led to blocking the canal and navigation was brought to a halt with more than 300 ships waiting in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean to enter the canal.

It has been noted that the media have been overdramatising the incident and its impact on world trade, considering that it occurred in one of the most important passages of international maritime shipping. The Canal contributes to the shipping operations of almost 10% of world trade, 8% of liquid gas and one million oil barrels a day, i.e., $10 billion a day.

This incident was the third in a series of disasters that blighted Egypt within days. It occurred after the train crash and the collapse of the 12-floor building that caused the death of several residents. Although the container ship incident was anomalous according to experts, it was however a heavy blow to president al-Sisi who had turned the project of expanding the Canal into a national landmark and an example of his development leadership in Egypt. Some media outlets quoted the Japanese owner company’s statements suggesting that strong winds and sandstorms were the cause of the incident while the Egyptian meteorological agency announced that the speed of the winds recorded on the day of the incident was no more than 51 kilometres per hour, with the presence of a sandstorm, which is not unusual for the region. Admiral Osama Rabie, Chairman and Managing Director of the Suez Canal Authority, said “the weather conditions were not the main cause that led the ship to get wedged,” adding that “human or technical errors may have been the cause and all these issues will be clarified through the investigation.”

According to AP News, experts confirmed that it “would have been difficult for 51 km winds to cause the wedging of a 220,000 ton container ship.” Besides, it was not the first incident involving Ever Green; in 2019 it was involved in an incident with a passenger ship at the German seaport of Hamburg and the operating company at that time claimed that high winds were the cause of the incident.

Despite the presence of some dubious indications surrounding the incident, it has, however, without a shadow of a doubt, been exploited in weakening the domestic and foreign position of al-Sisi and in regulating his regime according to the trends of Joe Biden’s administration which champions the imposing of participatory democracy to vent the masses’ anger. The New York Times reported on the village of Manshiyet Rugola overlooking the wedged ship and the Suez Canal, through which $10 billion worth of commodities pass each day, and quoted an old lady from the village as saying that “one container is enough to satisfy the hunger of the village,” in an indication of the masses’ resentment towards al-Sisi’s governance of the country’s affairs that has led to impoverishing them. Moreover, preparations are underway to conclude a reconciliation between the regime and the opposition, both “Islamic” and secularist, via Turkish mediation. This initiative is dictated by the need to reshape the relations between Egypt and Turkey within the framework of the plans of restructuring the Middle East and the Turkish role in Libya. The incident is also being harnessed to highlight the strategic supply chains through which America is endeavouring to exert pressure on the European states and compel them to reduce their dependence on China within the context of America’s endeavour to magnify China’s threat to Western interests and values, and to exploit the Chinese scarecrow as a pretext to mobilise the countries of the world behind her leadership and entrench her capitalist values and systems in international relations on the basis of the political, economic, and social liberal formula.

Hence, although the indications do not support the notion suggesting that the incident had been plotted, it has however been exploited to shed light on the policies serving the interests of the US and the trends of the Zionist entity. On the regional plane, especially in respect of what is known nowadays as the “Eastern Mediterranean”, it is common knowledge that the blast that targeted the Beirut harbour last summer, leading to putting the port out of service, was followed with the normalisation of relations between the Emirates and the usurping entity within one year; the first memorandum of understanding signed between the UAE and "Israel" was pertinent to the Emirati company Dubai Ports World and the "Israeli" company DoverTower. The deal involved purchasing and developing the seaport of Haifa and turning it into a free-trade zone akin to Jabel Ali in Dubai. For his part, "Israeli" energy minister Yuval Steinitz proposed the admission of the UAE to the East Mediterranean Gas Forum which includes Egypt, "Israel", Greece, Italy, Jordan, and Cyprus.

Therefore, magnifying the incident is designed to activate the normalisation agreements, exploit the huge funds of the key portfolios of the Muslims which exceed $1.7 trillion for the Gulf States alone, and integrate the Zionist entity within the region through the gates of economic partnership, in addition to the military and security partnership necessitated by the challenges of the Iranian file.
The Emirates, who is leading the normalisation caravan, represents the spearhead in the US-Zionist initiative aimed at integrating the usurping entity into the financial and economic system of the region, so as to turn it into a normal system that contributes to deepening the frailty of the countries of the region, especially Egypt who represents a manpower reservoir and a geopolitical challenge to the West and the Zionist entity.

Some of the normalisation projects being proposed are establishing a sea channel via the seaport of Eilat, which will rival the Suez Canal and support the Haifa seaport in the absence of the port of Beirut and the ports of Syria which have been offered to Russia, building a railway between Tel Aviv and Eilat and linking it to a railway to the Gulf States, modernising the ports of Ashdod and Eilat, and linking the huge Saudi oilfields of Abqaiq to Eilat’s seaport to ship Saudi oil to Europe and America via a 700 km highway which would in turn be linked to the Eilat-Ashkelon highway.

These projects, in addition to the previously proposed pipelines to transport Azerbaijani and Kazak oil, would lead to instituting an Emirati-"Israeli" energy centre which would turn into a main energy passageway to world markets, and give the two states, or rather "Israel", a host of commercial, economic and financial privileges which would contribute to sidestepping the dangerous and costly maritime routes of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, and allow several European and American companies, which used to avoid dealing with the usurping entity in the energy sector - for fear of their interests in the Gulf States – to follow in the footsteps of Chevron, the third largest US gas and oil exploration company, and invest billions of dollars in the field of gas and oil explorations in "Israel" and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The potential and declared projects reveal that they institute a comprehensive package aimed at integrating "Israel" into the region and link the fate of the people of the region and their interests to its survival while changing the rules of the game in granting the usurping entity the financial backing to control the commodities and oil trade in the Eastern Mediterranean region at the expense of Egypt (the Suez Canal and its harbours such as Dumyat) and the people of the region, and in doing so, aborting any initiative that would turn Egypt into a regional centre for energy and natural gas exports to European markets, in addition to deepening the poverty of Egypt and its people, considering that she constitutes the largest population and military force the Muslims could rely upon in the Arab lands.

Hence, the Muslims ought to be constantly vigilant and aware of what the Kuffar are plotting for the region, and what America is undertaking in collaboration with the treacherous regimes of the region to integrate the Jewish entity economically into the region now that they have concluded the political agreements with it. This makes it incumbent upon us to stand up to these plots, rejecting them and striving to thwart them so that they may remain dead text until the opportune moment comes for the Ummah to rectify the situation and uproot this freak entity from the region for good.

15 Sha’aban 1442h
29 March 2021
 

hizbuttahrir.org

Political Observation - The Salt Hospital Incident in Jordan & the Pressures and Challenges Facing King Abdullah 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Observation - The Salt Hospital Incident in Jordan & the Pressures and Challenges Facing King Abdullah

Yesterday morning, Saturday 13 March, shortage of oxygen supplies at the intensive care unit of al-Salt new hospital in Jordan caused the death of 7 patients according to health minister Dr Nathir Obeidat who was reported by Jordanian press agency Petra to have said in a press briefing that he took responsibility for the incident.

Soon after the incident, Jordanian monarch, king Abdullah II rushed “angrily” to the hospital wearing a military uniform. The prime minister announced the dismissal of the health minister as the Lower House Speaker, Abdulmunim Oddat, and President of the Senate, Faisal al-Fayez, known for their absolute loyalty to the king, called for a session of the Lower House and the Senate to debate the incident. Meanwhile, several prosecutors began their investigation amid overwhelming popular anger.

It is clear that the high-level and strong reaction of the regime reflects the sensitivity of the domestic and foreign political situation for the king and his crown prince. This is why the Jordanian regime swiftly suspended the hospital directors and charged them with causing the deaths. The surrounding political circumstances and the regime’s decision to mobilise its political forces to tackle the impact of the incident on the tense popular atmosphere is set to weaken the royal institution and contribute to the endeavour to reshape the Jordanian regime in parallel with the regional and international political events, especially liquidating the issue of Palestine, downsizing Iran, and settling the Syrian file.

Although the Salt hospital incident was caused by the government’s negligence and disregard to the wellbeing of the masses, the US embassy’s message to its citizens a day before the incident warning them against visiting several Jordanian cities including al-Salt under the pretext of “crime and terrorism” could not be viewed as sheer coincidence. This is set to turn the incident into potent ammunition for generating tension and a part of the tools of struggle between the dynamism of the opposition forces and the palace. The so-called opposition against the king have called for a demonstration on 24 March, as they took advantage of the Biden administration’s intention to exert pressure on the regimes with the pickaxe of democracy to weaken them, recycle the crises of the region, and discharge the tension within the popular atmospheres and the wastes of the oppression caused by the police regimes that America imposed on the people of the region, in order to initiate popular calls for American liberal values and perpetuate the sacrifice of the Ummah’s children for their sake.

The political facts in Jordan, the most notorious of which is imposing economic restrictions on the masses, exploiting the coronavirus to extend the lockdown, muzzle and tame the masses and deprive them of the rites reflecting their unity such as the Friday prayer, preventing the dynamism from gathering to slam the foreign plots and dictates, the king’s harassment of his brothers, especially prince Hamza and prince Hashem, his marginalising of his brothers Ali and Faisal, his embellishment of his son crown prince Hussein by projecting him extensively in the media, in addition to his visit two days ago to Saudi who had given prince Hashem a very warm welcome which vexed him and led him to dismiss his brother from his post as senior secretary at the Royal Hashemite Court, his meeting with the "Israeli" defence minister, Benny Gantz, who was quoted as saying “unfortunately, Netanyahu is a persona non grata in Jordan and his presence harms the relations between the two countries”, his refusal to meet Netanyahu who needed his backing in his electoral campaign, all this falls within the context of foreign and domestic challenges the king is facing in respect of the requirements of the forthcoming political phase and bequeathing the throne to his son. It falls also within the context of the American shift under the new administration and its approaches vis-à-vis the regional solution which the new administration aims to orchestrate through soft power and according to its interests and the interests of the usurping entity, which hinge on the need to resume the negotiations with the participation of a Palestinian authority representing all the factions, preparations for which are underway through the Palestinian elections, and on Jordan’s participation which would absorb the upshots of the final solutions, a scenario in which king Abdullah is attempting to invest to bequeath the throne to his son.

There is no change in US strategy on the file of the “Palestinian refugees” in Jordan. It is the trump card with which king Abdullah is bargaining with the US administration to secure his son’s accession to the throne, and for the sake of which he is attempting to remove the domestic obstacles facing it by restructuring the army, security services and the intelligence agency, since such institutions, in addition to the tribal dynamism and the retired army officers, represent the traditional forces opposing the notion of widening the political rights of the “Palestinian constituent”. This is why the king’s message to the Jordanian intelligence agency alluded to curtailing all its interactants pertinent to political aspects and confining its function to the professional security aspect, especially as the message, which included a reprimand to the agency, was preceded by a royal instruction to enact a new election law within the framework of the political reform being regulated according to the constructs of liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

The friction and tension between Jordan and "Israel" falls under the atmospheres in which the king is struggling to market his successor, prince Hussein, and corroborate his Hashemite custodianship over the sacred precincts in the city of al-Quds, such as the contact between the Jordanian leadership with Benny Gantz, and Netanyahu’s decision to prevent the crown prince from visiting al-Aqsa Mosque to commemorate the night of al-Isra’, thus depriving him of the chance to market himself as custodian over the holy precincts; this was viewed as a reprimand by Netanyahu to king Abdullah who hosted his rival Gantz, and as a reflection of Netanyahu’s doctrine stipulating "Israel’s” sovereignty over al-Quds, with Jordan’s role reduced to administering and servicing the sacred precincts of the Muslims and Christians.

In light of these events, the domestic tensions and incidents are set to escalate in Jordan amid the regime’s efforts to tighten its grip on society with a catalogue of fabricated pretexts, pressures of the dynamism, as well as the foreign carrots and sticks, to eventually arrive at a restructuring of the regime, balancing between the desire of the king to bequeath the throne to his crown prince and the demands of the people of Jordan, in addition to the requirements of liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

In the midst of this political performance by the regimes and by those who present themselves as an alternative, the people of Jordan and the children of the Islamic Ummah throughout their countries continue to pay a heavy price with their lives and their sustenance because they have turned away from the remembrance of their Lord and His Shari'ah in which their salvation, might and dignity lie. Hence, they ought to realise that they would have no human dignity and no decent living if they continued to depart in their dynamism and struggle from nationalistic and patriotic visions, declined liberal values, and false secularist solutions. They ought to realise that the rulers in their countries compete to gain the pleasure of their American master who controls them through its embassies in their countries.

30 Rajab 1442h
14 March 2021

hizbuttahrir.org
 

Political Comment - The Pope's Visit to Iraq 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Political Comment

Pope Francis concluded his “historic” four-day visit to Iraq on 8 March 2021 despite the restrictions and lockdowns imposed on the masses due to the coronavirus pandemic, and at a time blasts and missile attacks have been escalating in the lands of Mesopotamia. The pope visited four Iraqi governorates, namely Baghdad, al-Najaf, Dhi Qar, Mosul and Erbil, and met President Barham Saleh, prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, and several Kurdish leaders.

On the second day of his tour, the pope headed south to al-Najaf where he held an “historic” meeting with the Shia authority ayatollah Sistani before visiting the ancient city of Ur, which is believed to be the birthplace of prophet Ibrahim peace be upon him, and held an inter-faith prayer in which representatives of Islam and various Christian sects and churches took part.

Having perceived the aims behind this visit and reading between the lines of the ensuing statements and communiqués in addition to the surrounding circumstances, actual details, reality of the pope and his role and the reality of the Iraqi political leaders, especially al-Sistani, it has transpired that the visit was designed to promote many concepts and issues.

The main aim of the visit was propagating the principle of “religious co-existence” under the umbrella of “Abrahamic religions” which has remarkably been exploited to justify alliance and normalisation with the Zionist entity. Hence, the pope’s visit to Ur, the city symbolising prophet Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was not innocent. Moreover, the visit was designed to propagate liberal democracy which attends to the rights of the individuals and minorities, integrate all faiths and entrench secularism, which is allegedly neutral towards all religions and sects. This is the approach Joe Biden intends to initiate through soft power styles in his bid to reshape the Middle East intellectually and politically; this involves supporting the Hawza of al-Najaf rather than the Hawza of Qum as per the requirements of the current political phase which necessitates lending an official status to the Hawza of al-Najaf and marginalising the Iranian Hawza of Qum, in order to weaken Iran’s influence on Iraq’s political forces, downsize her sectarian influence over the region to the advantage of Sistani who is categorising the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) on the basis of loyalty to his authority and affiliation to the government of al-Kadhimi, and dwarfing the Iranian role to the advantage of the regional solution which is designed to integrate the Zionist entity within the security, economic, and societal fabric of the Middle East. Moreover, it would be more precarious if this visit preceded a plan under which America, or "Israel", in light of the "Israeli" election atmosphere, to strike Iran and compel her to return back to her functional role. This means the pope’s visit to Iraq is part of the effort of stripping Iran of her tools and neutralising them while sparing the US interests in Iraq of the fallout of any potential crisis.

It is common knowledge that the Vatican has played a pivotal focal role in serving the interests and aims of the US and "Israel" in several issues such as the internationalising of al-Quds and absolving the Jews of the “Messiah’s blood” in contradiction to the bible. Furthermore, the Vatican was very instrumental in aiding the US to dismantle the Soviet Union as stated in the declassified CIA report of 1978 which also mentioned that a Polish pope would resurrect nationalism in Poland and other countries under Soviet occupation, thus destabilising the USSR. Consequently, President Reagan succeeded in harnessing the Vatican in destroying the Soviet Union through the coordination between the Vatican and CIA director William Casey.

This “peace-loving” pope in particular is the one who pressed against military intervention in Syria in 2013 in response to the use of chemical weapons against the masses. This was when the US opted to not intervene militarily and this pope, who assumed the role of “peace dove”, aided President Obama by instructing Papal diplomats to contact more than 70 foreign ambassadors and inform them of the pope’s aversion to military intervention in Syria, which led Iran to describe the pope’s style of halting aerial strikes against the Syrian regime as “impressive”.

In addition to all this, the pope’s visit sends a message of support to the followers of the Shia sect in the Gulf states and religious minorities in the Islamic world. Protecting religious minorities, for America and the colonialist powers, constitutes grounds for intervening and dividing Muslims’ lands under the guise of protecting their holy precincts and the religious and ethnic minorities in the name of freedom and democracy. This is what happened when Britain allowed the Chinese to emigrate to Singapore until they became the majority and demanded secession from Malaysia. It also happened in southern Sudan and East Timor, and it is underway in the Kurdish areas, the Amazigh’s areas in Algeria and the Shia areas in Yemen. This is why the US Congress has enacted the law of intervention to protect religious minorities.

It is also under this theme that changing the education curricula, removing Quranic verses and prophetic hadiths and distorting the concepts is taking place in Muslims’ lands, especially in the Gulf region and al-Sham, to identify with the alleged “Abrahamic” religion and the alliance deals with the Zionists. Meanwhile, Muslim minorities, even if they were of European origin, continue to endure oppression and discrimination in the countries of democracy and preachers of human rights.

The pope’s visit to Iraq, which was shrouded with excessive glorification and homage, was designed to convey a message of vainglory and haughtiness, considering that it derived its “historic” attribute from being a visit to the metropolis of the Abbasside Khilafah which the emperor of the “holy” Roman empire, Charlemagne, used to curry favour to its caliph, Harun al-Rashid. From this visit, the pope also aims to embellish the West in the eyes of the Muslims and to efface the aftermath of the West’s savage crimes. whose colonialist and crusader motive was corroborated by George Bush. His personal visit to Sistani was a token of appreciation and gratitude for the services he rendered to the US when he called on the people of Iraq in August 2004 to cooperate with America and refrain from fighting her, not to mention his other services to his American masters such as his persistent endeavour to dismantle the Popular Mobilisation Forces, integrate them within state institutions and separate them from Iran.

In fact, the most prominent feature of this visit is that it came as a complement to what America had started in the Emirates two years ago when the pope met the grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, and signed what was dubbed as the “Document of Human Fraternity” which instituted the notion of “Abrahamic Faith” which is refuted by the saying of Allah “Abraham was neither a "Jew" nor a "Christian", but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto Allah; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to anything beside Him.” [Aal-Imran-67]

This visit is akin to a crusader Zionist secularist campaign, supporting the barbaric campaign against Muslims, their lands and the foundations of their religion with the aim of humiliating them, obliterating their identity and enslaving them to the criminal West, its agents and its decadent liberal values.

It is disgraceful for the pope to assume the lowly role of propagating secularism and atheism which turned on the church during the “Age of Enlightenment” and declared war on “God”. He who claims to be “God on earth” is but a traitor and a liar; he calls for not harnessing religion in politics, and for supporting the oppressed and helping the needy, and yet he subjugates his religion and church to serve the atheists and secularists, and the beasts of capitalism, colonialism and world tyranny.

It is also repugnant for those who claim to love the Aal al-Bayt to repeat the treason of Ibn-ul Alqami and pave the way for America and her agent, the pope, welcome them with roses, give them control over the lands, and leave the fate of their children and the children of the Muslims in the hands of the evilest creatures. This visit has trampled over the dignity of the Muslims; it would not have taken place had it not been for the lowliness and depravity of America’s agents in Iraq, headed by the chieftain of the Hawza Sistani, head of state Barham Saleh, and prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, who greeted the pope as a conqueror.

In response to the falsehood of “terrorism” that the pope of the colonialist West has spuriously attributed to Muslims to justify his support for his brethren in faith, and his call on Muslims to abandon their religion and embrace “Abrahamic religion” and “Human Fraternity”, we re-iterate that the causes of violence against non-Muslims from among the Dhimmi and covenantors, which Islam does not endorse, are instigated the West, the concocter of “terrorism” and “terrorists”; also responsible are the regimes that the West has generated to oppress the Muslims, Islamic movements, and the volition of the masses. The alignment of the West and its agents with the minorities at the expense of the Muslims who constitute the overwhelming majority in their lands, is responsible for this alleged “terrorism”, together with the leaders of the religious sects who provoke the Muslims, embolden themselves against them with the help of foreign powers and significantly shore up the criminal regimes, as is the case with the Copts of Egypt who support the criminal Abdul Fattah al-Sisi.

The animosity of the West and the collaborating regimes, from among the various sects and the secularists, towards Islam and Muslims, which is reflected in displacing them and demolishing their mosques without any denunciation and disapproval, is far more despicable than the demolition of a few churches and the displacement of the Christians over whom the pope grieved during his visit. Hence, the followers of the various sects should reject being used by the West and its agents as fuel for the war against Islam and Muslims if they want safety and salvation.

The Muslims for their part should stand up to the insolent campaign against Islam led by the regimes and their lowly tools from among the followers of various sects, secularists and hired agents. The Muslims had a lofty status, dignity and grandeur when they had a state; but when their political entity was demolished, they became more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master, and the leaders of the West started to brazenly boast about their belittling of the Muslims and plundering of their riches.

Muslims have no other way to regain their squandered dignity and sovereignty over their lands and to liberate themselves from dependence than to treat the work towards resuming the Islamic way of life as a decisive issue that leads to effectively establishing their state which will preserve the rights of its subjects irrespective of their religion and place the world on the threshold of justice and and restore the lost human dignity.

Hizb ut-Tahrir

24 Rajab 1442h
8 March 2021

hizbuttahrir.org

Trip Down the Political Horizons Within the Context of US Plans to Downsize Iran in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Trip Down the Political Horizons - Within the Context of US Plans to Downsize Iran in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen

Political escalation towards Iran

Joe Biden’s administration has emphasised the priority of the Iranian nuclear file and its inclination to restore the agreement concluded with Iran in 2015. It is however exploiting the sanctions on Iran, Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement, and the Iranian ballistic missiles program to reregulate Iran’s activities which are no longer part of the agenda pertinent to the Arab-"Israeli" normalisation and alliance. The former nuclear agreement was designed during Obama’s tenure within the framework of the role assigned to Iran, namely dismantling the region on sectarian grounds. It was engineered in a manner that allegedly evoked the anxiety of Saudi and "Israel" with the aim of generating a common Saudi-"Israeli" interest that justified alliance and normalisation at a later stage. Therefore, Saudi objected to the deal and "Israel" expressed its reservations towards it.

Then the Trump administration brought the Deal of the Century in cahoots with "Israel" to up the ante in the Iranian file. Hence, America withdrew from the agreement and "Israel" was given a free rein to strike Iranian forces and her affiliated militias in Syria to lure Iran into a reaction in the shape of military strikes against Saudi via the Yemeni al-Houthi militia, thus paving the way for the Arab-"Israeli" rapprochement and the regional solution, which was later interpreted by the agreements of shame concluded by the Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, which in turn will smooth the path for bin Salman to jump on the bandwagon of normalisation and alliance.

Then came Joe Biden, who is reported to have said that: "If Israel had not existed, the United States would have invented Israel," and "What people must understand now, and to be crystal clear, is that Israel is the largest power of the United States in the Middle East…. And I would say to my friends when they tell you these things, I would say: Imagine our conditions in the world if there were no Israel, how many warships there would be. How many soldiers will be deployed,” or words to that effect. This is to complement the phases of shaping the region and designing its alliances and security with the participation of "Israel", which represents an advanced military base to him, exploiting what Iran refers to as “strategic patience” to ensure the continuity of the normalisation process and to restructure the Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese and Yemeni regimes according to the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI) with its new modernist attire that relieves the Zionist entity of the attribute of enemy and allows it to integrate in the region. This necessitates pushing bin Salman towards further openness to modernity, democracy, and liberalism, and leading the Islamic world towards accepting the Zionist existence and liquidating the “Palestinian issue”.

It is in this context that Joe Biden harnessed the Iranian scarecrow and the file of Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination to twist bin Salman’s arm into gambling with his fate and undertaking unpopular decisions pertinent to domestic political change, and normalisation and alliance with "Israel", as well as the Yemeni file which, should he fail to resolve, would be a scandal impinging on his ability to inherit the throne and compelling him to comply with the requirements of the regional solution. This narrative was reflected in the statement of deputy chairman of the AK Party, Yasin Aktay, who commented on the report of the CIA pertinent to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi by saying: “It is sad that the issue of Jamal Khashoggi has turned into a trump card in the hand of the US against Saudi.” All this intersects with Iran’sreactions to her downsizing and the clipping of her wings in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, and compels her to push her surrogates to escalate their activities, especially in Iraq and Yemen, and to target Saudi, particularly after the agreement of Sinjar between the government of al-Kadhimi and the government of Arbil. The agreement stipulates evacuating the armed factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) from the region, and blocking Iran’s gateways to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, with the consent of Turkey, and which has recently led the Iranian and Turkish diplomats in Iraq to trade accusations.

Iran incites her surrogates and strengthens her standpoint to negotiate with America.

On the other hand, America did not squander the opportunity to strike the PMF last week in the Iranian gateway through the Iraqi-Syrian borders in the region of Boukamal in order to deter Iran and her surrogates from impinging on the Sinjar agreement which was designed to strip Iran of the most strategic position in northern Iraq on the Syrian borders. It was also designed to exert pressure on the PMF who have rejected the agreement and are continuing to resist their integration within the Iraqi forces under the leadership of al Kadhimi, and to attack the military bases hosting US soldiers, such as their attack on al-Harir bases in Arbil in mid-February, as well as their targeting of Ain al-Assad airbase. in an attempt to dissuade al-Kadhimi from implementing what he had pledged to America regarding “imposing the sovereignty of the law, restricting the possessions of weapons to the state, and protecting the diplomatic missions and their properties. ”

Although such attacks by the PMF on military bases and the attacks of al-Houthi group on Saudi and their campaign on the Yemeni city of Marib are related to the specificity of the Iraqi and Yemeni issues, they represent a message Iran wants to send stipulating that she still controls the reins of those groups. And through such groups she wants to obtain a bargaining chip in her negotiations with the US over their relationship and her functional regional role which has started to be corroded as the process of normalisation between the Gulf States and "Israel" continues to gather momentum and is close to establishing a defence and security alliance which has started to crop up following the recent attack on the "Israeli" cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman, which was likely to have been conducted by Iran. This is what Benny Gantz stated following the talks he held with Jordanian king Abdullah II who, for his part, aspires to play a role that would bring him closer to the new US administration and restore the support of the Gulf States via the "Israeli" gate.

The escalation in Marib and the reengineering of the Yemeni standpoint pertinent to fragmentation

As for the plane of the Houthi attacks on Saudi, and their attack on Marib, the targeting of Saudi by the Houthis has not ceased; if anything, it has even increased in a remarkable manner, especially the recent attack that targeted Riyadh after it had been focused on the areas of Asir and Najran. This coincided with the diplomatic onslaught Washington waged against Saudi in general and on crown prince bin Salman in particular, especially a few days after the return of U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking from his visit to Saudi where he had extensive meetings with the Saudi defence and foreign affairs ministers in the presence of United Nations Security Council Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths and a number of US top brass. This indicates that America has taken a host of practical steps pertinent to the final solution to the war in Yemen and to the reengineering of the Yemeni standpoint to steer it towards a negotiated settlement which will culminate in dividing Yemen; this manoeuvre was discerned by the Houthis who launched their attack on Marib in order to impose a fait accompli on the ground which would guarantee them a share in the energy revenues.

Marib is situated 120 kms east of the Yemeni capital Sanaa which has been under the control of the Houthis since their coup against the regime of Saleh in September 2014. It is an oil-rich area and the only “northern” province completely under the control of the forces of the Hadi government. It is a strategic city situated to the south of the oil-rich al-Jawf governorate and hosts the largest refinery in Yemen and the largest power station on which Sanaa depends for 50% of its energy needs. As for the recent clashes that erupted after Biden stated that “the war in Yemen must stop”, and which are taking place in al-Mashja’a and Haylan in the directorate of Sirwah, west of the Marib governorate, and also in the al-Jada’an area, to the northwest of the governorate, they are designed by the Houthis to control the strategic area and spread their hegemony over them ahead of the final talks to end the war and settle the Yemeni file. The Houthis are taking advantage of the American decision to end the logistic and military support to the Saudi alliance in order to weaken the government of Hadi and divide Yemen between them, i.e., the Houthis and the Transitional Council in the south. This is corroborated by their intensive attacks on the Marib governorate from several points and from the side of al-Jawf, after they have made some incursions into the strategic Dahida mountains in order to tighten their grip on the government forces in the areas of Safir and al-Alam where the oil and natural gas wells are situated.

It is evident that America’s lethargic standpoint towards the Houthis’ attack on Marib and the comment of president and commander of the Southern Transitional Council, Major General Aidarus Qassem Abdulaziz al-Zoubaidi, on the battles taking place around it, that the process of dividing Yemen has begun; al-Zoubaidi said: “It would be also possible to change the political scene by depriving the government of Hadi of its last major pieces of land in north Yemen. And this could lead to a situation whereby the Southern Transitional Council would be dominating the south to a great extent and the Houthis controlling most of the north.” This can only lead to marginalising the Saudi role, especially that Biden has now appointed a delegate to oversee the Yemeni file and the US has suspended military support to Saudi in her war in Yemen, in addition to the channels America has generated to contact al-Houthi directly. All this is designed to lead to ending the war under a US/UN supervision and turning the page of “the legitimacy of Hadi” who is still at odds with the forces of south Yemen, a scenario which will smooth the way for al-Houthi to dominate the north and the STC to dominate the south. Perhaps this is why bin Salman exploited the international sympathetic standpoint towards Saudi following the recent attacks on Saudi and mobilised his forces to repel the Houthis’ onslaught on Marib in a bid to obtain a trump card that will enable him to get closer to the US administration since Biden has inclined towards ending the war in Yemen.

The battle of Marib is expected to crystallise the phase of fragmentation and pave the way for the political process leading to it. The fallouts of the battle are expected to expand the dominance of the Houthis over the most important positions of the “legitimate government”, or at least give them a foothold in Marib to enhance their negotiating position, marginalise president Hadi to the benefit of the STC, and enable them to acquire the components of a state in the north by either seizing control of the energy resources or threatening them. This will allow the Houthis to negotiate over the energy resources and to gain some trump cards for the negotiations pertinent to the maritime passage in Hudaydah and to the division that Iran has explicitly called for and for which the Biden administration paved the way by refusing to label the Houthi group as a terrorist organisation, while maintaining the sanctions on some senior leaders in order to subjugate and contain them. This explains what has been attributed to Hassan Nasrullah who has been reported as saying: “The Houthis are on the verge of achieving a magnificent victory and drawing a new equation.”

As for the “legitimate government”, there is a rift between Hadi and the STC over competencies and administration, and this was deduced from the statement of the STC and its calls for Saudi to urgently find a solution to the unilateral decisions Hadi has been taking in isolation of the cabinet, such as appointing senior civil servants without prior consultation; and this could lead to renewing military confrontation. This will in turn lead to downsizing the role of the presidency that represents the “Yemeni unity” and transferring the competencies to the government, thus confining its affairs to the south. In an interview with the Guardian, President of the Southern Transitional Council, Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, called for the STC’s right to have a presence in all the final negotiations with the Houthis. He said if a referendum were held, they would gain 90% of the votes for the secession of the south. He also warned that the “Yemeni issues would not be solved if the voice of the south were overlooked.”

Moreover, south Yemen is susceptible to strife and federalisation due to regional rifts. America would not have achieved such successes in bringing the region to a state of chaos in order to rearrange it according to her interests had it not been for those functional regimes and those collaborating rulers, and for those military and political cliques who had accepted to be a tool in the hands of domestic and regional sides in executing the plans of the American master. And such plans would not have seen the light had the masses in Yemen viewed the moves of the collaborators and the political and military cliques from the angle of the Islamic Aqeedah and Shari'ah that imposes on them the obligation in thwarting the plots of the Kafir enemies and those proceeding behind them from among the traitors. It also forbids them from drifting towards killing each other and fuelling hatred amongst them so as to make them accept their separation from each other to live under divided entities which inflict the Ummah with more division, fragmentation and further weakness.

20 Rajab 1442h

4 March 2021

Political Observation - The Political Dynamism in Turkey