Political Observation - Is there an International Struggle between America and Russia

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 

Political Observation - Is there an International Struggle between America and Russia

The recent diplomatic crisis between Russia on the one hand and Europe and NATO member states headed by America on the other was triggered by the poisoning incident of Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter on 4 March 2018. 

The strong reaction to the incident by Britain, America and Europe, the latter currently being embroiled in a trade war with America, could not be conceived unless the strategic threat Russia poses to the US was perceived. Russia is a nuclear power and she has adopted a new doctrine pertinent to her right to an immediate response should nuclear weapons be used against her; she has also been attempting to impede America’s plans for Central Asia and to take control of its oil and supply routes, notwithstanding the Sino-Russian strategic relations and, Russia’s support for Turkey and Iran since they represent the two most strategic gateways - the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Expelling dozens of Russian diplomats resulting in the closing of several Russian consulates by several European countries has come at the behest of the US who had sought to exert pressure on Russia and besiege her since she deems her as the second major factor impacting negatively on the progress of the American initiatives in the Islamic region. Despite the ostensible personal relationship between Trump and Putin, Russia, one of the main backers of Turkey’s rebellion against America and NATO, is impeding American manoeuvres in Syria, Afghanistan, the Ukraine, Crimea and other areas where Russian influence is manifest.

Hence, the issue of the Russian spy is not merely an assassination in which Russia in implicated but rather a scheme designed to reshape Western relationship with Russia within the framework that serves America’s interests since she is viewed as the architect of European military and security policies. The first aim which America is seeking to achieve by instigating the Russian spy incident is to compel Moscow’s arm into severing her tactical alliance with Turkey and comply with Western conditions on several regional and international files.

The circumstances and the timing corroborate the fact that the poisoning of the Russian spy was fabricated by Britain and her master America since Russia has nothing to gain from carrying out the assassination which is more likely to place her in awkward situation only days ahead of the Russian elections and a few months ahead of the World Cup. Moreover, Russia exchanged Sergei Skripal with Britain for Russian spies and had he posed a major threat to her national security, she would have killed him rather than handing him over to Britain in the first place.

Hence, the poisoning of the Russian spy and his daughter was most probably carried out by either British intelligence or its American counterpart, or both, in order to achieve the aforementioned aims, the most important of which is generating Western animosity towards Russia, thus compelling her to comply with American demands in international and regional relations. Russia is not the only country in possession of the nerve gas Novichok, which corroborates further America and Britain’s implication in the assassination. Britain is in possession of this nerve gas at her Porton Down military research facility that is incidentally few miles away from Salisbury where the Russian spy was assassinated. The exaggerated reaction of Europe and America reflected in the expulsion of tens of Russian diplomats and the closure of Russian consulates, which did not happen even at the height of the cold war between the Western and Eastern blocs, acts as yet another proof of Britain and America’s involvement in the poisoning incident.

Moreover, ambassador Nicki Haley, the US permanent representative to the UN, stated that the poisoning incident was not the only reason for the expulsion of Russian diplomats but also the Russian comportment in Syria and Ukraine as well as the activities of Russian intelligence officers in the US.

What worries America and her Western allies most is the role that Russia is undertaking in helping Turkey in her rebellious trends and her policies pertaining to ridding herself from the custodianship of NATO and the EU. This Russian stance poses a strategic threat to the West as it undermines the unity of NATO and its functionality throughout the world and may turn Turkey into a role model for other states seeking to break away from the Western custodianship system. Russia is effectively facing a blatant threat from America and her allies. The escalating tension we have recently witnessed and the ensuing diplomatic crisis and the further sanctions imposed on Russia are merely a prelude to a host of Western plots against Russia which aim to fragment Russian lands, dominate her resources and besiege her with a NATO security belt with which Russia’s links to Central Asia would be severed and her attempt to build oil pipelines away from areas dominated by the West akin to the “TurkStream” pipeline – which was built to avoid having Russian gas passing through Ukraine - would be thwarted.

However, it seems that the Kremlin rulers are aware of the Western plots. This is why Vladimir Putin turned defence into attack and declared during his speech on 1 March 2018 that Russia reserved the right to respond immediately saying “Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences.”
However, despite the recent unfolding events, there is no international struggle between Russia and America over the international situation. Russia lacks the willpower and the means to topple America from her unilateral dominion over international decision- making and this does not constitute part of her plans in the foreseeable future. Russia is merely cooperating with America in certain files related to her interests and which do not impinge on her short-term or long-term national security. This is evident in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt. This cooperation achieves a host of financial, military and political interests to Russia and at the same time helps somewhat the execution of the US agenda.

As for the apparent rifts between America and Russia, some of them are staged, such as the rift over Bashar Assad’s tenure or the military campaign against the Syrian opposition around Damascus, while others are genuine, such as the right of the Kurds to an independent state, the dominion over the oilfields or the borders of the areas of influence in Syria; this explains why America and her allies tend to target Russian armours and shell a number of Russian or Syrian positions. As for the other issues related to the areas close to Russia such as Central Asia (Afghanistan) and the Baltic region (the Ukraine and Crimea), the rifts are genuine because the point at issue is related to Russia’s own existence and to her national security. 

As for the Russo-Turkish relationship, it also constitutes one of the genuine rifts between Russia and America since the latter fears that Moscow’s alliance with Ankara may undermine NATO’s role in achieving America’s security interests. Hence, the noticeable tensions between America and Russia could either be genuine or fabricated; however, the genuine rifts are most of the time ironed out through trade-offs over outstanding issues between the two sides.

28 Rajab 1439h
15 April 2018 

 

Feature

  • Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds  
     
    The events of al-Quds have come amidst the preparations for the Palestinian elections which have been impeded by the split of the Fatah movement in the electoral lists, and amidst the efforts of Netanyahu to form a government and his attempt to rally the support of the rightwing and the settlers to accept his government. It is clear that Netanyahu and Abbas are the main beneficiaries of the escalation and the postponement of the elections, in which Hamas is expected to win a share that does not reflect the wishes of Netanyahu and his far-right supporters, with a US administration that does not make Netanyahu’s wishes part of its political considerations, inasmuch as it wishes to see a Palestinian government which  includes representatives of the “Palestinian people” and accepts the previous commitments and agreements, especially the issue of the US embassy in al-Quds and the internationalisation of the holy precincts. This means the escalation, irrespective of the instigating side, is prone for investment since all the stakeholders set about investing in the escalation including Hamas and Jordan, who has no way to appear on the scene except through the custodianship over the Islamic and Christian holy precincts, and the issue of the refugees within the equation of the final solution.   
     
    What is paradoxical in this saga is the Palestinian authority and the Arab regimes’ persistence to bank on the Biden administration which has not retracted from the decisions of Donald Trump on vital issues such as al-Quds, refugees and the two-state solution that the Arab rulers are grovelling for, even though the entire world community has been urging them and even the Islamists to embrace it in order to exert pressure on the usurping entity has failed to compel "Israel" to open the gates of al-Quds and allow the elections of a self- rule authority to take place, let alone impose the rise of a Palestinian state with al-Quds as its capital.  
     
    The only solution to tackle this entity is Jihad in order to uproot it altogether. The Arabs alone are capable of achieving this should the sincere will be generated. There is no other way to exact our rights except through Jihad since those who have hoisted the banner of “death to the Arabs” are not an isolated movement in "Israel" but rather a sizable sector with a powerful and weighty representation in the Knesset which is dominated by the far-right settlers who believe in the Torahic allegations and call for the united city of al-Quds as the capital of "Israel"; they do not recognise the Palestinians’ right to the West Bank and call for solving the Palestinian issue outside "Israel" and even getting rid of the Palestinian demographic and expelling those Palestinians to Jordan. The Zionist religious movement has a solid bloc in the current Knesset consisting of 72 extremist religious members out of 120, and the current ongoing rifts in "Israel" nowadays are between extremist fa-right Zionists and not between doves seeking peace in exchange for the land and hawks impeding it, as was the case during the days of the Likud and Labour parties.  
     
    "Israel" today is the same "Israel" which the Arabs concluded peace agreements which nullified the war option and adopted negotiations as a strategic choice. Hence, the sharpest weapon for liberation is Jihad and supporting those resisting the Judaising of al-Quds, rather than supporting the peaceful popular resistance in an unbalanced battle to justify the forthcoming concessions or resorting to the United Nations, or banking on the collaborating rulers who keep kicking the people of Palestine around like a football.      
     
    20 Ramadhan 1442h
    2 May 2021   
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman
     
    Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman says Saudi endorses the Qur’an as a constitution for the kingdom and is 90% in agreement with the Biden administration. He is obviously seeking to combine between paradoxes, namely flirting with the religious institution that has been supporting him and hoisting the Qur’an on the tip of his spear to justify killing those whom he has dubbed as “terrorists” while plotting to abolish the prophetic Sunnah and the remnants of the laws derived from religion to complement the project of obliterating the landmarks of Islam in the kingdom which has never ruled by Islam for one single day in the first instance. Mohammed bin Salman wants to insinuate to his opponents that Biden is pleased with him, considering that the legitimacy of Aal Saud’s rule in general, and Aal Salman in particular, is derived from the pleasure of the US. He has flirted with the masses by reviewing the Saudi economic situation in comparison with other oil-producing countries. If this manoeuvring were to prove anything, it would only prove his doubts and uncertainties about acceding to power, especially as the Biden administration, who had announced the possibility of dealing with him according to US interests, has not completely closed off the issue of Jamal Khashoggi’s assassination, which hints at the probability of doing away with him once America has used him up and achieved her designs for Saudi through him, which could include federalising the kingdom and isolating the holy precincts from the areas that are vital to US interests. 
     
    Mohammed bin Salman’s admission that he is 90% in agreement with America strips the Salafist sheikhs of all pretexts to continue throwing dust in the eyes of the masses and urging them to obey those in authority who chose to be slaves to the enemies of Allah, as the 90% agreed upon with America includes fighting Islam, promoting secularism and liberalism, spreading debauchery, and grooming a generation affiliated to Western culture, values and way of life, in line with the international liberal democratic approach embraced by the Biden administration, and which Mohammed bin Salman set about implementing by abolishing the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, embracing the secularist approach, imprisoning or harassing a number of scholars and buying the loyalty of others, and recently amending the educational curricula. 
     
    With respect to Iran, the change in Mohammed bin Salman’s policy was evidently manifest as he shifted from threatening to “take the war to inside Iran” to a conciliatory discourse he expressed during his televised interview by saying “Iran is a neighbouring country, and we aspire to establishing the best of relations with her. We do not harbour any ill feeling towards Iran; we wish her progress and prosperity. We have our interests in Iran and they have their interests with us.”
     
    As for the Yemeni file, Mohammed bin Salman has made a U-turn from his hard-line policy dubbed “Decisive Storm” to an “outstretched hand policy” towards the Houthis, and yet again in response to the Biden approach and the new US policy in Yemen which involves easing the tension with Iran and bringing her gradually out of isolation in a bid to regulate Teheran’s behaviour according to the tempo of Washington’s policy in the region,  in addition to downsizing Turkey’s influence. 
     
    Hence, a host of agreements have been concluded between America and Iran in the past couple of days, including America’s decision to unfreeze Iranian assets totalling $7 billion and release four Iranian nationals in exchange for the release of four dual nationals, namely Morad Tahbaz,  Siamak Namazi, Bagher Namazi and Emad Shargi, by Iran who hopes the step would contribute positively to restoring relations between the two countries, especially as the Biden administration is neither interested in investing in the Iranian nuclear file apart from lending support to the Iranian reformist movement, nor in helping Netanyahu who has been unable to form a cabinet due to the rifts between the "Israeli" rightwing political forces. This intent was interpreted by the progress in the negotiations over the nuclear file and by leaking recordings of Jawad Zarif in which he slammed Gen. Soleimani, the conservative movement, and the security and military forces in Iran, in support of Rouhani and Zarif. 

    Iranian president Hassan Rouhani stated that “leaking a recording of my senior diplomat was designed to cause a rift within the Islamic republic as talks aimed at reviving an international nuclear agreement were ongoing. That voice recording was leaked as the talks were about to be very successful; and this has triggered a rift in Iran.” His statement falls under the political tussle between the reformists and the conservatives who invested in the statements of Zarif to demonise the reformists. In parallel with these developments, America has set about containing "Israel" and regulating its reactions and behaviour vis-à-vis US- Iranian talks by giving Iran and Hamas free rein to launch strikes against "Israeli" targets to deter Netanyahu who was described by some "Israeli" journalists as “being dangerous when facing a crisis”, and through the US-"Israeli" agreement to set up an inter-agency working group to monitor Iranian drones and precision-guided missiles. This evoked the apprehensions of the Republican party and the evangelical rightwing in the US, and John Kerry was subjected to a barrage of criticism in the US Congress after the recording of Zarif was leaked in which he said that John Kerry had informed him that "Israel" launched at least 200 strikes against Iranian interests in Syria. Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley demanded answers from Kerry and Joe Biden tweeting that “Biden and Kerry have to answer for why Kerry would be tipping off Iran, the number one sponsor of terror while stabbing one of our greatest partners, Israel, in the back.” Hence, Biden is expected to postpone any agreement between Saudi, despite her readiness to normalise her relations with the usurping entity as per the statement of their foreign minister, and "Israel", until the midterm congressional elections next year, to lure the evangelical electoral powerbase and shore up his party in the Senate. 
     
    20 Ramadhan 1442h 
    2 May 2021   
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • 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 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    The New START Treaty 
     
    The Russo-American New START Treaty on long-range ballistic missiles was signed in 2010 with each side given time to meet its commitments. It expired in 2018 but was extended to 2026 when Biden took office.  
     
    The New START Treaty is an extension of the Start 1 Treaty signed by George Bush Sr and Gorbachev in 1991, and seconded by Start 2, which was not adopted and Start 3 over which negotiations ended in a stalemate. 
     
    The New START Treaty was signed by US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev in 2010 and it aimed at reducing strategic offensive weapons, and giving each country the right to audit the commitment of the other party to the stipulations of the treaty in respect of limiting intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The treaty also stipulated that the two sides would commit themselves to reduce nuclear warheads to 700 intercontinental missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, strategic warheads, 1550 nuclear warheads and 800 sea, air and land launchers.
     
    The New START Treaty falls within the framework of regulating the military relationship between the US and Russia. And although the acquisition of nuclear weapon has become an immunity against wars due to its devastating consequences on all sides, such agreements that America concludes are however indispensable in order to exclude armed conflict completely from the tools of struggle, strip opponents of the chance to benefit from military power, which represents the most significant element for imposing willpower, and confine disputes and rivalries with her opponents to diplomatic activity, the interactants of which she controls in conducting international relations in exploiting the power of her influence in the world and her dominion over international institutions, as well as her economic clout, widespread values, the supremacy of the capitalist system and the dominion of her currency over the world financial system.  
     
    America needs such treaties to reassure the capitalists and preserve the stable environment for investment, which represents the backbone of her economic supremacy. Hence, it is a treaty reflecting reassurance among the countries and masses of the world since the presence of nuclear intercontinental missiles leads to incertitude with the impact of the tension between America and Russia on the world’s US dollar reserves in particular and on world markets. On the other hand, the US benefits from the New START Treaty  by corroborating her leadership role in terms of regulating military relationships and controlling world peace and security, in addition to the need to dissipate the apprehensions of her citizens over Russia’s nuclear weapons; this is why she sought to extend the New START Treaty on long-range missiles, contrary to the treaty on medium-range nuclear missiles, which is pertinent to European security, and from which Donald Trump withdrew to send shivers down the spine of the European Union, ensuring America’s manipulation of Europe’s security via NATO while incentivising the Europeans to increase their military expenditure. This helps America reinforce the European states’ impotence so that she may contain and blackmail them, and ensure they continue to be harnessed to execute her international initiatives and plans. This explains why Donald Trump rebuked Macron when he called for the need to review Putin’s proposal to turn Europe into a safe region from the threats of short and medium-range nuclear missiles through a moratorium on deploying short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. 
     
    18 Sha’aban 1442 
    31 March 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • 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 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - The Political Dynamism in Turkey
     
    Turkey’s political milieu has been subjected since 11 November 2020 to a barrage of unprecedented shockwaves, tensions and splits, which by and large have been revolving around the conservative nationalistic discourse and its ideological models, i.e., full secularism and partial secularism, being hijacked and monopolised by the main political parties, namely the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), due to what the conservative discourse, with its sentimental Islamic and secularist tinge, holds in terms of cranes to lift the parties to power.
     
    It is common knowledge that a host of sheer domestic factors and some foreign factors that have crept in through the political forces affiliated to foreign powers, play a focal role in the tensions and polarisations taking place on the political scene and influencing the Turkish parties’ domestic agendas pertinent to the regime and the constitution.
     
    From this perspective, we can expound the Turkish domestic and foreign political situation while taking into account that some domestic events are not detached from the meddling of the US who has been endeavouring to reshape the regime and bring Turkey back to her stable since Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became independent and disrupted some of her agendas in Turkey and the region.
     
    As for the splits that have dealt the major parties a heavy blow and resulted in the emergence of 4 new parties led by prominent figures from the main two parties, their motives are divergent in accordance with the party from which they originated. The decision of Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan to split and establish two opposition parties falls within the attempts to exert pressure on Erdoğan and end his monopoly over the Islamic sentimental discourse and the conservative nationalistic discourse, knowing that Ali Babacan and Ahmet Davutoğlu split from the AKP amid a tense relationship between Erdoğan and America and at the height of America’s pressure on Turkey.
     
    Ahmet Davutoğlu conveyed America’s demands to Bashar Assad at the beginning of the “Syrian revolution”, whereas Ali Babacan studied and worked in the US. It is also common knowledge that both men oppose Erdoğan in his domestic and foreign policies, which clash with US policy.

    As for the split within the CHP, its plane is merely domestic. The party suffered widespread resignations which included parliamentarians and prominent figures. This could tear apart the CHP, which is deemed as the main rival of the ruling AKP, and undermine its chances of toppling Erdoğan and the AKP from power in the coming elections after the successes it had achieved in the latest mayoral elections, especially the snatching of Istanbul’s municipality, the stronghold of the AKP, at the hands of Ekrem İmamoğlu.
     
    A month after three CHP parliamentarians had announced their resignation, namely Hüseyin Avni Aksoy, MP for the northern province of Karabük, Mehmet Ali Çelebi, MP for the western province of Izmir and Özcan Özer, MP for the north-western province of Yalova, prominent CHP leader Muharrem İnce announced his resignation during a press conference on 8 February from the party led by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. It was the biggest wave of resignations the party has faced for almost 12 years. This was a heavy blow to the US-affiliated CHP party. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu justified his resignation by the ideological deviations and deep crises the party had been experiencing, in addition to the rifts between its popular base and the administration. “I am now parting company with those who solicit democracy from the US and those who do not follow the path of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk,” he said, adding “I am parting company with the fake CHP, and with those who protect the Gülen organisation, and those who do not understand the meaning of the Blue Homeland, as well as those who could not stomach Turkey’s support of Azerbaijan”. This indicates the presence of deep rifts between the various wings of the party, which is linked to the widespread state of polarisation that has swept the entire Turkish political milieu, including the AKP from which Ali Babacan and Ahmet Davutoğlu resigned. It is also common knowledge that the fever which has stricken the Turkish political milieu has intensified since the change of guard in the US administration and in light of Joe Biden’s hostile stance towards Erdoğan and his huge support for the Kurds. And this explains the alliance that has been concluded between the CHP and the Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), the internal rift within the CHP and the scathing attack of Muharrem İnce who left the party and harnessed the conservative secularist nationalist discourse to attract support for himself. This is why Muharrem İnce is banking on the US stance towards Erdoğan and the damage Kemal Kilicdaroglu inflicted on the principles of the CHP in response to America’s demands on the Kurdish issue, to launch his political venture to achieve his leadership aspirations separately from the CHP whose alliance with the HDP and flirting with the religious sentiments of the Turkish people constitute, in his opinion, a deviation from the Kemalist principles of the party and the nationalist populist discourse. He is hoping that the US pressure on Erdoğan, such as through the statement of former chief of staff Mehmet İlker Başbuğ “had Adnan Menderes called for early elections, he would not have been ousted [and executed]”, and the report of the US Rand Corporation claiming that a fresh military coup in Turkey could not be ruled out, in addition to the rumours spread by Ahmet Davutoğlu suggesting that a coup against Erdoğan was in the offing and that his supporters were about to abandon ship, and what will follow ahead of the coming elections, will secure a place for him on the political scene, hoping that the political manoeuvre of Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan to establish an alliance with Saadet Party (aka Felicity Party) against the AKP will damage the popularity and popular base of the alliance of the nationalist movement and the AKP to his own advantage.
     
    This is why Erdoğan visited the grave of former prime minister Necmettin Erbakan, and visited the Chairman of the Felicity Party High Advisory Board, Oğuzhan Asiltürk, at his home in the hope of winning him over and disrupting Ahmet Davutoğlu and Ali Babacan’s attempts to forge further alliances against him.
     
    It is also in this context that Erdoğan visited his ally, chairman Devlet Bahçeli of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), at his home in order to strengthen their alliance following Bahçeli’s statement of “Once the HDP is shut down and our call is answered, we will do what we have to do.” Amidst this dynamism, Erdoğan’s team fanned the flames of discontent when they launched a scathing attack on the CHP with the aim of deepening its divisions and demanded from its members to explain why their delegate, Özgan, had a meeting with the CIA and the Pentagon on the eve of the failed 2016 coup. The story caused an uproar and amassed further pressure on the CHP and its leaders. Erdoğan has also been instrumental in adding fuel to the political tussle and scattering the standpoints of the opposition by proposing a constitutional amendment to consolidate the presidential system which the CHP and its allies, especially the “Good Party”, have called to be repealed and revert to a parliamentarian system.

    The unfolding events of the Turkish political scene could be summed up in a host of gambles and political investments from all stakeholders amongst the new regional and international facts, and in preparing for the upcoming elections according to personal and international agendas. A vivid example of this is the ongoing tussle that erupted at Bosphorus University, the stronghold of the secularists and the first university America founded in the Islamic world before the collapse of the Ottoman Khilafah, after Erdoğan appointed a new president from the conservative movement.

    Erdoğan has been endeavouring to consolidate his political gains by staging a host of manoeuvres and tactical withdrawals in foreign policy such as the issue of the Russian S400 defence system, and by exploiting the terrorist acts carried out by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to amass support for his policies and standpoints while shoring up his popularity. He has also been attempting to bulwark his approach and policies by updating the constitution, consolidating the presidential system, circumventing his opponents’ call for a parliamentary system and dividing their ranks with the help of the Turkish intelligence services, which is most likely behind the Kemalists’ efforts to split the CHP, and via his flagrant calls for rebellion against CHP president Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu who has mortgaged the thoughts and the progression of his party to America’s domestic and foreign plans in Turkey. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu had previously confirmed this when he accused Erdoğan and his men and intelligence cronies of driving a wedge between the opposition parties. Meanwhile, the opposition parties for their part have been attempting to rattle Erdoğan’s cage and to forge further alliances against him by taking advantage of the American trend towards regional issues in disrupting Turkey’s achievements from which Erdoğan derives his popularity.
     
    9 Rajab 1442h
    21 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency

    On Monday 8 February Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc. announced, in its annual disclosure, that it had invested about $1.5 billion in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin in the last month. This disclosure came following the accelerated rise in the price of the cryptocurrency which started last November, leading to quadrupling its value and peaking to around $50,000 on 16 February 2021.


    This spike was remarkable and unprecedented, especially after the previous falls the currency suffered in 2018 and 2019; and although some observers have attributed the recent gradual rise in the price of Bitcoin that started in the second quarter of 2020 to the collapse in oil prices and the stock markets’ turbulences caused by the knock-on-effect of coronavirus on the world economy, there are, however, a host of strong indications that a powerful volition has been behind what is occurring. In March 2020 Forbes Magazine reported in a promotional manner that Bitcoin would achieve astronomical profits if the US launched cryptocurrency based on the Democratic Party’s proposed bill pertinent to providing financial support to alleviate the economic impact of coronavirus, and which called for establishing a digital dollar wallet for every US citizen. The magazine confirmed that major financial institutions had started investing in in Bitcoin. The European Union (EU) for its part announced on 18 September 2020 that it would launch a cryptocurrency in 2024. This triggered the demand for cryptocurrencies after it had been stagnating and encouraged several investors to invest in Bitcoin, which consequently reduced the pressure on the spiralling demand for gold whose prices peaked to near $2000 per ounce as a result of the shepherded media campaign to deepen the state of uncertainty vis-à-vis the world economy and the fears over the coronavirus crisis and its fallouts.


    In order to perceive the dimensions and the fallouts of this momentous and constant rise that started in November 2020 and of the investors’ attraction to cryptocurrencies, especially Tesla’s investment, due to its standing in the US economic and political scene, it would be imperative to take into account the motives of Tesla Inc., its funders, and the approaches of the various wings within the deep state, especially the financial and the industrial ones, including the new industries such as the digital and environmental. Tesla Inc. manufactures electric vehicles and giant batteries for energy storage; it never had any presence in the deep state like the institutions of the defence industry, namely Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Tesla Inc. was founded in 2003 and in less than 20 years, its annual revenues reached $21 billion. Besides, it is not the first company to express an interest in cryptocurrencies. Facebook has expressed its intention to spearhead a cryptocurrency under the name Libra since 2019. The decision of new economy firms with influence on the US administration’s trends such as Tesla, Facebook and Microsoft among others to jump on the bandwagon of cryptocurrency denotes undoubtedly the presence of a pressure being exerted by them and by some financiers on the decision-making circles in the US, especially on the Federal institutions such as the Treasury, the Federal Bank, and The Bureau of the Fiscal Service, to organise cryptocurrencies within a legal framework and regulatory laws to protect capital with governmental protection, especially that the second major investor in Tesla Inc. after the founder Elon Musk is the Susquehanna International Group, which is considered one of the biggest stimulator of trade in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum with 500 investors dealing with it in cryptocurrency since 2016.


    The group expects these currencies to replace gold as a rare commodity and a safe haven, or so it is trying to promote in order to attract investment in the cryptocurrency market, expand this investment and incentivise the state to regulate it.
    On the other side of the fence, the Republicans, Trump’s supporters in particular, would probably resist the notion of the private sector, especially the digital industries sector, being independent in coining cryptocurrencies, and would attempt to weaken their influence in terms of orchestrating the polices and occupying the positions of decision-making. This is why Donald Trump was averse to cryptocurrencies and slammed Facebook for its endeavour to spearhead its cryptocurrency Libra. It has, however, been noted that the dynamism pertinent to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has been gathering a remarkable momentum since the arrival of Biden and the Democrats who have been backing digital industries from the onset.
    This explains the statement of US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen in which she said: “I think we need to look closely at how to encourage their use for legitimate activities while curtailing their use for malign and illegal activities. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Federal Reserve Board and the other federal banking and securities regulators on how to implement an effective regulatory framework for these and other fintech innovations.” All this is part and parcel of the drive to regulate cryptocurrencies and give them an official status.


    It would also be imperative to discern the difference between the Blockchain technology and the cryptocurrencies that rely on the technology. The former is is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets without the need of a third party such as a Central Bank or Customs and Excise, whereas the latter, i.e. cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, they can be used to pay for a commodity or a service or in any transaction without being linked to any specific currency; and the choice is left both parties of the contract.


    This is what has occasioned the drive to regulate cryptocurrencies; because if they remained a loose cannon, they could cause a fiasco. Hence, governments set about attempting to constrain the technology and the currencies and harness them politically and economically. This is why Janet Yellen said that cryptocurrencies “can be used to finance terrorism, facilitate money laundering, and support malign activities that threaten U.S. national security interests and the integrity of the U.S. and international financial systems.” She elaborated: “I think many are used … mainly for illicit financing and I think we really need to examine ways in which we can curtail their use and make sure that anti-money laundering (sic) doesn’t occur through those channels.”
    “I think we need to look closely at how to encourage their use for legitimate activities while curtailing their use for malign and illegal activities,” she added. This statement was by and large echoed by the president of the European Central Bank Christine Lagarde with the aim of justifying the regulating and controlling of cryptocurrencies.


    Inducing the peoples and the countries of the world to accept the notion of cryptocurrencies has become a political reality since most of the world’s assets saved in dollars or euros are virtually digital currencies today since they are not covered by gold. The grounds for digital currencies and cryptocurrencies have been prepared since the events of 9/11 with the aim of linking financial transactions to the systems and laws enacted by America under the theme of a “unified financial regulator”, which is in fact epitomised in an international organisation that exerts international political pressure and compels the countries of the world to generate financial, legal and procedural policies and systems, and carry out a host of amendments to suit the interests of the seven major powers; this includes digitising financial transactions to facilitate the process of controlling, monitoring and acquisitioning funds by US judicial bodies in order to impose sanctions on states and individuals whenever necessary. Moreover, cryptocurrencies would enable the US to lend support to the movements involved in her policies, initiatives and agendas, and working against the regimes targeted by America, and would allow her agents to automatically exchange documents away from the surveillance of the regimes in the countries America wishes to destabilise and blackmail. Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation Alex Gladstein told Decrypt Website that: “In authoritarian regimes like Russia, the government has total control over the banking system, but doesn’t control Bitcoin.”


    This is why Russian opposition activist Navalny has a cryptocurrency wallet through which he has been receiving donations from unknown sources, thus allowing him to nurture other encrypted wallets away from Russian security control according to Decrypt website.


    What could be said in general concerning the initiation of the cryptocurrency market and according to the information available up until now is that the process is designed to incentivise and expand investment in cryptocurrency in order to justify governmental intervention, legalisation, control and dominion over the market. Hence, pressure groups have been working on two fronts:


    1- Encouraging investors to inject cash into cryptocurrency markets exactly as they did at the beginning of digital technology in the nineties of the past century, so that they may finance a new market that will dominate private and governmental commercial transaction in the coming years. Statistics have confirmed that the flow of investments in cryptocurrency market has led to a spiralling increase from $200 billion in September 2020 to $1.1 trillion today.


    2- Opening the floodgates for dealing in cryptocurrency in digital markets and in assets (vehicles and real estate), in order to impose their adherence to the prevalent corporate laws, which compels them to reveal and declare all transactions to avoid incurring sanctions and penalties. And this would enable the pressure groups from extracting the black market dormant funds and absorb them into the financial markets, thus enabling the government to monitor them.


    The process aims also at generating a defensive mechanism to reduce the pressure on gold and immunise the dollar against the fallouts of inflation and competition from cryptocurrency. Hence, legalising cryptocurrency is designed to control it and turn its rivalry to the dollar into a support, cover and ally to gold at the same time, especially that the state of uncertainty caused by political, financial and economic crises, disasters, competition, and speculations has led many countries to shy away from banknotes and turn to gold; and in the last few years, some countries such as Russia, China and Turkey have increased their gold reserves.


    The stimulation of the cryptocurrency market is deemed as a psychological preparation for the masses to accept financial dealing and exchange in a cashless society in the future, and to rely on electronic assets for their savings which have become a digital currency with a value exceeding the size of the banknotes in circulation. Recent statistics have revealed that the assets of the digital dollar have increased to $9 trillion as opposed to the $1.1 trillion of banknotes in circulation. This psychological preparation will eventually lead to accepting to shift towards cryptocurrency and digital currency, thus achieving the aims of digitising the transactions and the interests of the US.


    6 Rajab 1442h
    18 February 2021

     

  • Political Observation - Upshots of the Libyan Political Dialogue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Upshots of the Libyan Political Dialogue

    The last round of voting by the 75 members of the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum set up by the United Nations and consisting of 75 members, 13 of whom are from the House of Representatives, and 13 from the High Council of State, in addition to members from various tribal and political milieux, took place on 5 February 2021 in Geneva. The vote was won by the third list headed by Mohammad Younes Menfi from the “east”, Mousa al-Kouni from the “south”, Abdullah Hussein Al-Lafi from the “west”, and prime minister Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah from Misrata.

    The fourth list headed by Aqilah Saleh, with Abdul Majeed Ghaith Seif Al-Nasr representing the south, Osama Abdul Salam Juwaili representing the west, and Fathi Ali Abdul Salam Bashagha as prime minister, lost the vote.

    The list of the Libyan diplomat and former ally of the Justice and Construction party (Muslim Brotherhood), Mohammad Younes Menfi, together with Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah, won by 39 votes, whereas their rivals Aqilah Saleh, head of the Tobruk-based parliament, and Fathi Ali Abdul Salam Bashagha, interior minister of the Government of National Accord (GNA), won 34 votes.

    The winning list is expected to run the country’s affairs for an interim period, until the presidential and parliamentary elections are held on 24 December 2021.

    These results were seconded by regional and international support, as well as meeting approval of all domestic stakeholders such as the government of al-Sarraj in Tripoli and the Tobruk-based House of Representatives headed by Aqilah Saleh who pledged to “support the work of the government”.
    As for the US administration, it called for a smooth and constructive handover of all the competencies and duty to the new executive authority and vowed to bring to account all those who undermined stability and hampered the political process in Libya. The agreement was also welcomed by the UN Secretary General, the League of Arab States, and the states sponsoring Khalifah Haftar.

    In order to perceive what has been achieved by the 75-member committee commissioned with electing the key positions of the state, and which resulted in appointing Mohammed al Menfi as interim president of the High Council of State and Abdul Hamid Mohammed Dbeibah of Misrata as interim prime minister, it would be imperative to realise that all the candidates for the post of prime minister had pledged in writing to adhere to the roadmap agreed upon in Tunis, which stipulated the criteria for selecting the nominees for the key positions in the new executive authority, namely the president of the High Council of State, his two deputies, and the prime minister, and which also stipulated unifying the executive authority that had been divided since 2014, and forging ahead with implementing the host of security, military, economic and political measures, culminating in organising general elections and appointing a permanent government in December. It would also be imperative to realise that the task assigned to this authority is temporary and those assuming it would not be eligible for nomination in the forthcoming phase. This was corroborated by the deputy head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), Stephanie Williams, who stated that the interim executive authority would work on the specific process, that is evacuating foreign forces and tackling domestic Libyan challenges. She stressed that the selection mechanism would yield an interim executive authority with specific competencies, and its main task would be to hold parliamentary and presidential elections on 24 December 2021.

    Since the mandate of the elected authority is temporary, constrained to an agenda predetermined by the “roadmap” and involving the withdrawal of foreign forces and tackling domestic challenges according to the Berlin Conference’s upshots, which are in line with the American vision proposed by the US Congress under the “Libya Stabilization Act”, and since the bloc that won the vote is approved by the forces of western Libya, discarding Aqilah Saleh and his gang in eastern Libya, and Fathi Bashagha in western Libya on whom the US will be relying in the future, removing the top tier leaderships and the controversial personalities in Libya, including the Head of the High Council of State Khaled al-Meshri, from the political façade at this stage, and portraying the new authority as being a technocrat government, this means they intend to deceive the people of Libya, especially in Tripoli and Misrata, thus smoothing the way for the “losing” forces and enabling them in the forthcoming and permanent phase, once the task of the interim presidency and government has ended, to contain the domestic forces and muzzle the foreign forces, especially as the criteria of selecting the head of the Presidential Council have conferred the highest post to the east, and given the post of its two deputies to the west and the south, and confined the post of prime minister to a personality from the west. This is because the main problematic lies in the forces of western Libya where the people of the region continue to resist and uprise, and the spread of weapons and insecurity are rife, which prevents the agents of the US from controlling the state, and impacts negatively on the stability of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and the Sahel region. This would inevitably lead to taming and demoralising the masses, and working towards containing the people of western Libya and their armed groups and ending the struggle at the hands of their representatives.

    The elected prime minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, pledged in a message he addressed via video to the members of the forum to “end the struggle, hold elections on democratic principles, work with everyone irrespective of their thoughts, constituents, sects and regions, solve the problem of electricity and liquid cash, keeping weapons in the hands of the state, and improve relations with neighbouring states.”

    Hence, the recent developments do not express a change in the rules of the game as much as America’s circumvention of the reality she has generated through her agents to contain the popular dynamism and through introducing international and regional forces to fan the flames of struggle and rift between them, now that she has exhausted all the pretexts and designed a mechanism to restore the personalities she wants to power through a host of political and legal understandings to be overseen by the “mercurial” al-Menfi who was a supporter of Gaddafi during his student days in France, then established an alliance with the Justice and Construction Party, i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood, and then the patriotic forces led by the American agents Mahmoud Jibril. The understanding will also be overseen by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, one of the former beneficiaries of the Gaddafi regime and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and armed groups. These two agents are allegedly “clean” and have not been involved in corruption or the bloody struggle between east and west in 2019 and 2020.

    This explains the international welcome, including by Egypt, France and Greece, the sponsors of Khalifah Haftar and Aqilah Saleh, and explains why Stephanie Williams described the voting process that took place in the Geneva suburbs as a historic moment.


    The US will most probably bulwark the new government with a Security Council resolution against any foreign intervention and domestic impediments, and this is what the departing prime minister Fayez al-Sarraj called for.

    It is also expected from Abdul Hamid Dbeibah to work towards containing the forces of the west in Tripoli and Misrata, and conducting the relationship with Turkey with a view of determining her mission, while al-Menfi and al-Kouni will be expected to assume the task of reproducing the forces of eastern and southern Libya which will involve curbing the personal ambitions of Khalifah Haftar, unifying the military, security and civil institutions, forming regular forces, monopolising the weapons for the state, spreading dominance over society, including the Tuaregs who are being incited by France to seek secession in the south, downsizing French, Russian and Turkish meddling, and working towards nurturing the interim period and leading the country towards the upcoming elections. This is what infuriated Macron and led him to call for expelling Turkish soldiers from Libya following the agreement concluded by the Libyan forces and decisive riposte he received from Erdoğan.

    It is clear that the situation in Libya is heading towards downsizing the role of all foreign powers as America has succeeded in imposing a consensus between the warring factions with the aim of settling the domestic situation, nullifying the pretexts for foreign intervention and conducting the struggle in Eastern Mediterranean, despite the deep regional and ideological rifts among the Libyan stakeholders, which have been nurtured by regional rivalries, and despite the caveats pertinent to the “Islamists” remaining part of the political landscape and impacting the regimes of the region and the regional alliances. This is proved by the assurances given by Stephanie Williams stipulating that the government will assume its tasks irrespective of whether the parliamentarians gave it a vote of confidence or otherwise, because the “roadmap” on which the UN envoy insisted and placed in a prohibited area has tackled this issue through the mechanism of settling the struggle, namely returning to the Political Dialogue Forum to approve the government in case a dispute over it arose.

    Although the glitter of the roadmap concocted by America, the enemy of the Ummah, to end the struggle in Libya may deceive the gullible and trusting people, it however does not deceive the insightful from among the Ummah’s children, who are aware that the solutions coming from their enemies are in fact designed to shackle them further, and that the solutions to their problems can only be those which they impose with their own willpower, once they have rectified the situation and seized the reins of power to put an end to the meddling of the Kuffar, the enemies of the Ummah, in their affairs.

    27 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    9 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état

    The Burmese army carried out a coup d’état on Monday 1 February 2021 that resulted in toppling president Win Myint and arresting prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi along with other leading figures of her party. The army appointed vice-president Myint Swe in an acting capacity and declared a one-year state of emergency.

    The media office of the Myanmar army mentioned in its first comment following the coup that the coup leader, Gen Min Aung Hlaing, informed his new cabinet during its first meeting on Tuesday 2 February that “the army’s decision to seize power was inevitable”, following the complaints against election fraud.

    The Burmese army had hinted just before the elections at the beginning of November 2020 at its intention to destroy the democratic process initiated by Hilary Clinton in 2011, following a series of understandings, pressures and tempting Indian and Japanese projects. Consequently, Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was warmly welcomed at the White House and whose biography became the subject of a film in 2011 with a view to promote her before the masses of Myanmar, acceded to power in 2015 after she had been under house arrest.

    Soon after the National League for Democracy (NLD) headed by Aung San Suu Kyi was announced as the winner of the November 2020 elections, the army-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party contested the results and the army threatened to take action against what it described as election-rigging. Meanwhile, the Union Election Commission dismissed the claims of the army and the opposition. On 30 January, the army announced that it “would protect the constitution and act according to the law”; and this was translated into its putsch against the authority two days later and its imposition of a one-year state of emergency. The army justified its action via its affiliated media outlets by claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic and the government’s failure to postpone the November elections were some of the reasons why the state of emergency was declared. The Burmese top brass was banking on Aung San Suu Kyi’s slumping popularity due to the damage to her image at an international level following her stance on the Rohingya issue; the Nobel committee received several calls for stripping her of her prize, while other institutions, including the EU, have stripped her of their honorary awards. However, this did not prevent the West, whose interests take precedence over all other values, from denouncing the coup under the pretext of protecting democracy.

    US president Joe Biden commented that "The United States will stand up for democracy wherever it is under attack." He urged the Burmese army to “relinquish power they have seized”. Meanwhile, Facebook was quick to ban a TV channel affiliated to the army in Myanmar following the coup.

    For his part, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, said it was “a clear violation of the country’s constitution and an attempt by the military to overturn the will of the Myanmar people and their strong attachment to democracy” adding, “The European Union expects that the safety of the citizens of both Myanmar and of its Member States be ensured at all times and will consider all options at its disposal to ensure that democracy prevails.” The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, denounced the coup and said the “developments represent a serious blow to democratic reforms in Myanmar”. China for her part described Myanmar as a “friendly” state, while Western media described it as a Chinese satellite state. Beijing commented by saying it was “monitoring [the] events and calling on all sides to respect the constitution.”

    It is clear from Russia and China’s apprehensions towards the UN Security Council’s joint statement calling on the Burmese army to adhere to the democratic system and lift the state of emergency, and from the domestic facts and international reactions, coupled with the US media outlets’ focus on the issue of “human rights”, the visit of Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi to Myanmar before the recent events and his meeting with the army chief who expressed his gratitude to China and his support for her policies towards Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Uighur province, and the recent visit of the Russian defence minister Sergey Shoygu to Myanmar, where he signed a contract to supply the Burmese army with advanced Russian weapons and military equipment in exchange for special facilities giving Russian naval vessels access to Myanmar’s seaports, it is clear from all this that the coup of Gen. Min Aung Hlaing had been planned since November, just as Biden won the US presidential election in America, as a precaution against the American standpoint towards the Burmese army chiefs who have been hampering the democratic transition, and against the Indo-American activity which attempts to hamper the ASEAN countries’ endeavour to conclude a code of conduct with Beijing on the South China Sea.

    The results of the recent elections were frightening for the Burmese army because the 85% achieved by its arch enemy Aung San Suu Kyi and the 7% achieved by its close ally, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, do not reflect the size of the role the army plays in ruling matters; such a result opens the floodgates for redrafting the constitution and the hybrid system engineered by the army in order to secure its influence on the establishment, especially as the policy of openness towards democracy and the West, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, enjoys the backing of a movement within the armed forces. This is the movement that played a role in the agreement on power sharing with Aung San Suu Kyi. Hence, the results of November’s elections were disappointing for the army chief, Gen Min Aung Hlaing. They had dashed his hopes of nominating himself for president after his imminent retirement from the army. On the other hand, the results reflected the overwhelming popularity and dominance of Suu Kyi’s party over its rival, the Union Solidarity and Development Party on which the army had been banking.

    This is why Gen. Hlaing exploited a constitutional loophole allowing the army to intervene in political life in the 2008 constitution and carried out a coup against Suu Kyi to prevent her from taking office after he had become certain that he would not narrow the popularity gap with her party and win the elections. This would have also allowed the movement of the military leaders supporting democratic reform to dominate the military leadership, thus leading to the erosion of Chinese influence in Myanmar and undermining her political model of governance and her interests, such as oil and gas pipelines and the Road and Belt initiative, especially in the forthcoming phase in which the US, under the new administration, has adopted democracy as the cornerstone of confronting China and Russia. This was alluded to by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his reply to a question on China in which he said it would be hard to compete with China when her system seemed more stable in comparison with the chaotic American system.

    It is well known that Myanmar is one of the battlefields of systems and interests between the US, the sponsor of world democracy, and the hybrid communist system of China. Myanmar is also considered an area of intervention and tension through which America seeks to exert pressure on China, exactly like in the areas of border clashes between India and China, North Korea and South Korea, and the Uighur issue, especially as the rise of democracy in Myanmar 10 years ago was a significant breakthrough for America on the Chinese front, and a major accomplishment for former president Barack Obama, vice-president Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, engineered by Hilary Clinton thanks to her pledges of economic aid and sanctions’ alleviation.

    Nevertheless, the criminal leaders of the Burmese army, who were loyal to China, did not sit idly by but used Rohingya Muslims as fuel to distort the image of the US-backed prime minister, Aung San Suu Kyi. The army placed her in an awkward situation domestically and internationally through the ethnic cleansing campaign it conducted against the Rohingya Muslims in 2017. Suu Kyi was between the hammer and the anvil: if she had objected to the genocide against the Rohingya Muslims, she would have lost her popular backing from the extremist Buddhist majority, and if she had supported the genocide, she would have destroyed her nascent democracy from which she derived international support and exploited to curb the army’s role in ruling matters. However, Suu Kyi’s Western-backed performance in the Rohingya issue and her success in gaining the support of the masses thwarted the army’s endeavour and led it to move and carry out this military coup.

    The US is expected to exert significant international pressure on the Burmese army’s top brass and exploit the coup to incite the Burmese masses against the military regime, and to encourage the peoples of the region to move against the totalitarian regimes in Cambodia and Thailand in order to promote democracy through which her agents would accede to power, accentuate the flaws of the Chinese ruling system, and lead a worldwide campaign to lay siege to it.

    America will undoubtedly benefit from the coup to promote Biden’s agenda pertinent to the Indo-Pacific Oceans initiative and strengthen the partnerships between the countries of the region and the US, and thus containing China and supporting the Quad Alliance founded by Trump against China, comprising of the US, Japan, Australia and India who endeavours to execute with Japan the projects of transit routes linking south India with its northeast via Burmese lands, in addition to establishing links with Thailand.

    America may also harness the event to expand the area of tension surrounding China by encouraging the Rohingya to take up arms and exploiting them in armed operations to incite Islamic public opinion against China who backs the savage Burmese regime, in order to exert further pressure on her and hamper her support for the leaders of the coup.

    As for the Burmese top brass accused of genocide, they are banking on Chinese support, and on compelling Suu Kyi to agree to new terms leading to restoring their role in ruling matters, in addition to their attempt to harness the situation to negotiate a lifting of the US sanctions against them.

    21 Jumada al-Akhirah 1442h
    3 February 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     

  • Political Observation - Protests in Russia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 
     
    Political Observation - Protests in Russia 
     
    Tens of thousands in Moscow, St Petersberg and several other Russian cities took to the streets on 23 January 2021 in support of calls for the release of anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny who was arrested immediately upon his return to Russia from Germany on 17 January and charged with breaching the parole terms of his suspended sentence.
     
    Soon after his arrest, his fellow anti-corruption activists released a video clip showing a palace on the Black Sea coast they alleged belonged to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Prior to this, they issued a list of the eight most “notorious” Russian personalities from among the circle of President Putin and exhorted the West to impose sanctions on them. They seized on the pervasive corruption of Putin and the Russian elites allied with him, as well as the constant eccentricity of Russian justice, and the fall in living standards which evoked deep resentment towards the regime among a sizeable section of Russian masses that was reflected in the response of Russian youth to the calls of Navalny and his fellow activists to take to the streets and protest.
     
    The western media deliberately focused their attention on the 85 million views Putin’s short clip attracted and on cities that had never partaken in any protests before, such as Sevastopol and Komarov, as well as Russian youths who responded to the protests for the first time and who constituted 40% of the protesters. The protests’ organisers took advantage of the current generation’s oblivion to the events of 1990s when Putin salvaged Russia from the claws of the Russian oligarchs who cooperated with America to incite resentment and protests against him. Consequently, the current generation is unaware that the alternative to a greedy Putin are the beasts of capitalism who are more extremist and savage than Putin. They are a criminal liberal gang who want to share Russia with America and harness her to serve America globally.
      
    Following these protests, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian foreign ministers called for imposing restrictive measures on the Russian officials responsible for the arrests. The US State Department for its part announced that it would “stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and partners in defence of human rights – whether in Russia or wherever they come under threat.” Putin retorted by saying that “the police should act within the boundaries of the law.” And in a direct warning to Navalny, he said “no one should strive to achieve their aims and ambitious objectives, especially in politics, by using children, youths, and violence.” 
     
    In order to perceive these events, which undoubtedly America has instigated, it is imperative to explore them within the context of the American general perspective towards Russia, and in light of the new US administration’s standpoint which, owing to the interests of the US, has reverted to the democratic approach with its neoliberal format. This approach aims to entrench American grandeur and the policy of perpetuating  capitalism’s hegemony and is based on clashing with totalitarian regimes in both their versions, the nationalistic, such as Russia, and the ideological, such as the Chinese communist system and Islam, and on accentuating the civilisational disparity between capitalism and totalitarianism in order to secure US domestic cohesion and unilateral dominion over the international situation, and on achieving US overseas interests according to Joe Biden’s vision who said in his inaugural speech: “we'll lead, not merely by the example of our power, but by the power of our example.” In other words, by the superiority of the American system to the totalitarian systems of Russia and China. For his part, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken hinted at the difficulty in competing with China when her system seemed more stable than the American system.  
     
    From this perspective, America, who has been coveting Russian resources and the legacy of the former Soviet Union, is striving to destroy Putin’s nationalistic system which has been disrupting on her incursions deep into the Russian geopolitical sphere and even Russia proper. Hence, US strategy towards Russia is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. In fact, further pressure is expected to be exerted on Russia by the new US administration; and this has recently been reflected in the protests which are expected to resume in the next few days, especially as tackling the Middle East file warrants exerting some pressure on Putin and curbing Russian interventions beyond Russian boundaries in the forthcoming period. This narrative is corroborated by the consensus of the members of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations who convened on 19 January 2021 and stated that Russia would pay a heavy price and would have to bear the consequences of her acts of sabotage, her flagrant meddling in the US presidential elections of 2016, her occupation of Crimea, east Ukraine, Syria, and Libya, and her interference in the Karabakh war. The vice-chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez, was even quoted as telling Antony Blinken that he could request further competencies from the Committee if necessary. 
     
    The issue of the Russian opposition leader, Navalny, has evidently attracted President’s Biden attention who raised it during his telephone conversation with Putin; this was corroborated by the Kremlin spokesperson who stated that “with regard to this issue, yes, US President did raise it, and President Putin gave the necessary explanations.” This confirms conclusively that the protests that have recently erupted in Russia had been planned, orchestrated and timed as part of the US political raids on Russia and her sphere of influence in Belarus, Moldova, and Kyrgyzstan; Russia has so far lost Ukraine and Georgia to the US, and under the tenure of Joe Biden, the US raids are expected to take an extra dimension directed at the one-man state that Putin attached to his person. 
     
    This issue was extensively debated during the marathon session of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, especially by Senator Ted Cruz who referred to Nord Stream 2 when saying: "If you are concerned about military adventurism by Putin, the very best thing we can do is deprive him of the resources to fuel that military aggression” and adding that America should halt the pipeline even if it upset Merkel. In other words, America wants to drain Putin’s revenues which allowed Russia to rebuild her military force and bankroll her operations in Syria, Libya, Armenia and Ukraine. 
     
    Hence, these protests are part of the series of US pressures aimed at breaking the fear barrier of the Russian masses, and dismantling the hard nucleus of the Russian leadership represented by President Putin and the deep state within the army, security institutions and business tycoons. The Kremlin spokesperson, Dimitri Peskov, responded to Navalny’s claims of Putin owning the alleged palace by saying that “spurious vilifications such as these are but a series in the media campaign directed personally at President Putin…. and at destabilising Russia.” This was epitomised effectively by the protests in the slogan raised by the protesters, namely “We don’t fear you anymore”, which by the same token, carries a message of incitement to the peoples of the region and the Belt and Road countries within the Russian lebensraum. 
     
    This personal attack on Putin comes against the backdrop of the nature of the regime he founded and in which he played the role of saviour for the lost Russian people who had been resentful towards politics and the politicians. It is well known that Putin exploited the blasts that rocked Moscow during his premiership to veer the compass of public concern away from the slogans of social justice and economic reform to personal safety, peace and security, in order to tighten his grip on power. Putin harnessed the all-out war on Chechen “terrorism” as a gate to the hearts and minds of the lost and fearful masses, and he used widespread corruption as a pretext to purge the political milieu of rival forces, so that he may become the sole power broker thereafter. 
     
    As a consequence of Putin’s purging of the political milieu, especially of America’s men, and his oppressing of every real opponent, in addition to establishing a host of tailor-made parties, and due to the corruption-infested Russian political milieu which Putin succeeded in muzzling, America could not topple him and regulate Russia’s policy according to her own interests despite her repeated attempts. 
     
    This is why the issue of Navalny represents an opportunity for American political investment and for inciting the masses against the ruling class through the gate of combating corruption through which Putin himself acceded to power. America will exploit the Covid-19 crisis, the recent oil and gas price war, and the western sanctions on the Russian economy to intimidate the forces backing Putin, and dismantle the hard nucleus supplying him with power and resistance.   
     
    However, although the activity of Navalny and his team have demonstrated adequate ability in triggering the protests thanks to America’s help, and in undermining the popularity of Putin and his ruling party, Navalny is unable to topple the current regime instantly as he does not enjoy the support of the political and economic elites at the domestic level, and the US does not have any influential agents within the key ministries and institutions, such as the interior ministry, the army and security agencies, to provide Navalny and the protests with the appropriate support to topple the regime. 
     
    Although America realises that Navalny is unable to change the regime, she however continues to invest in the repeated cycles of protests and suppression, and in Putin’s blunder that turned Navalny from a western agent into a national hero. This is set in the long run to break the barrier of fear and undermine the image of the regime, weaken its support and downsize Putin’s popularity. As for the success of the regime’s endeavour in tackling the situation, it depends on Putin’s ability to ride the storm, quell the protests and bring the situation under control through intimidation, arrests, oppression, detentions and fines, which he resorted to in previous protests, so that he may resume the execution of his ambitious plan, namely establishing a presidential council akin to the Chinese regime, to ensure the continuance of his nationalistic independent policies after his departure.
     
    Putin will most probably continue to meet the escalation with escalation in respect of protecting his regime and the Russian entity based on his famous motto, namely “I am an officer and I do not surrender”. He may also resort to a tactical retraction in respect of his policies towards Syria and Libya, and to political manoeuvring in his relationship with Turkey and vis-à-vis the interests of the US with the Kurds. Putin may on the other hand opt for undermining the stability of the Baltic states, replacing his ally, Alexander Lukashenko, to fend off the US pressure exerted on him via Belarus, and reignite the tension in east Ukraine by organising a referendum on joining the Russian Federation, as he did in Crimea.  
     
    15 Jumada al-Akhirah 1442h
    28 January 2021 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - President Tebboune’s Return to Algeria and his Trip to Germany to Resume Treatment  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - President Tebboune’s Return to Algeria and his Trip to Germany to Resume Treatment

    Algerian state television announced on 29 December 2020 that president Abdulmajid Tebboune had returned to the country “safe and sound” after receiving hospital treatment for Covid-19 lasting two months in Germany.

    Soon after his return, Tebboune presided over government meetings, signed the budget law for 2021 and ratified the new constitutional amendment. A short while after his return, it was announced that he would travel to Germany to complete his treatment, without indicating the length of his absence; this cast doubt over the reality of his health condition. His return to Algeria and then his departure less than two weeks later to complete his treatment denoted an urgent mission to ratify the new constitution, sign the budget law of 2021, and corroborate the reality that the army had designed to contain the popular dynamism, muzzle political parties and lend legitimacy to the authority that has become concentrated in the hands of the new faces from among the top brass who have inherited the deep state under the leadership of General Said Chengriha and his cronies, following the fierce struggle which saw a host of liquidations between the various wings, including the liquidation of the wing loyal to former chief of staff, Gaid Saleh, through a white coup against his men, and the work to restore the credibility of the historical military icons and security services, with the aim of neutralising Algerian mainstream public opinion once and for all.

    It seems the return of the president from Germany was designed to dissipate the rumours surrounding his health and thwart the calls for effectuating article 102 of the constitution stipulating the removal of the president on the grounds of poor health; such calls were implicitly echoed by the President of the Peace Community Movement, Abdul Razak Makari.

    This denotes that the return of president Tebboune, who is but a puppet and a political façade for the rule of the generals, was coordinated with Gen. Said Chengriha to circumvent any calls that could prevent the approval of the budget and the constitutional amendment which has impacted the function of the army, and to thwart the attempts at hampering the progress of the formation of the new authority, or giving the initiative back to the masses after they have been discarded from the equation.

    The mysterious death of Gaid Saleh immediately after Tebboune assumed power has initiated a new phase in the chapter of struggle for power and positions of influence, and in the attempts at containing the Algerian dynamism. Soon after the death of Gaid Saleh, president Tebboune carried out extensive changes within the Algerian army, which affected the leaderships that former chief of staff had appointed, and consolidated the clique of Gen Said Chengriha. The most prominent leadership figures that Tebboune and Said Chengriha hastened to do away with was Head of Intelligence, General Wasini Bouazza, who had backed the rival of president Tebboune, namely former information minister Azzeddine Mihoubi. The dismissal of Wasini was to the advantage of former head of intelligence, Mohammed Mediene, aka Toufiq, Security Services Coordinator, Major General Athmane 'Bachir' Tartag, and Said Bouteflika, brother of former president Abdelaziz Bouteflika. This was an indication that the waters of the deep state had infiltrated the cracks of the establishment.

    President Tebboune toppled, last August, a host of senior officers working in three key administrations within the defence ministry, including Gen. Abdelkader Lashkhem, head of the Communications, Information Systems and Cyber Warfare Department, Gen. Ali Akroum, head of the Organisation and Logistics Department and Gen. Rashid Shouaki, Head of the Military Industries Department. All this falls under the endeavour to turn the page of the interim period and its icons and reproduce the military leadership positions to guarantee the role of the army and tighten its grip on the authority after it had succeeded in circumventing the popular dynamism thanks to the presidential elections and the constitutional amendments. It falls also under the initiative aimed at healing the rifts with the old guard and its men, such as Gen. Toufiq, who is expected to be prosecuted anew to either exonerate him or alleviate his sentence, and Said Bouteflika, who is affiliated to the camp of the old guard, now that the path has been smoothed by absolving former Algerian Labour Party leader, Louiza Hanoun, of corruption charges, in addition to cancelling the subpoena issued to Khaled Nezzar who commented after the appointment of Said Chengriha as general chief of staff that the “army is now in safe hands”. Soon after, Khaled Nezzar was absolved of money laundering charges in Spain and the 20-year sentence issued against him in absentia was rescinded one month after his return to Algeria; he has recently returned to one of Algeria’s military bases onboard the presidential jet to face trial and have his case closed. This was exploited by opponents of the current authority to incite public opinion against it.

    These facts indicate that Tebboune is nothing but a façade brought by the army and that the army are the de facto rulers of Algeria. The recent presidential elections were simply a measure designed to pacify the masses, give the military time to draw its breath and reproduce the political leadership that satisfies the interests of the military, pleases those behind them, dominates mainstream public opinion and dismantles the hard nucleus of the Algerian dynamism.

    Tebboune’s continuance in power is currently dependent on the volition of the army and on their ability to benefit from his continuance in his capacity as a façade to reshuffle their cards domestically and send reassuring messages to their employers abroad. As for Tebboune’s slamming of normalisation and of the scurrying of some countries to sign peace treaties with the Jewish entity, it does not exceed being an alignment with the popular standpoint in Algeria that strongly rejects normalisation, especially as the rulers of Algeria and the army derive their legitimacy from their standpoint towards the Western Sahara and their standpoint towards the Palestinian issue, which is consistent with the emotions of the people in Algeria, despite their declared commitment to the Arab peace initiative and the two-state solution.

    It is well known that Gen. Said Chengriha exploited the regional developments in Libya in which the role of Algeria and the interests of its leaders were marginalised due to the rapprochement between the al-Sarraj government and Egypt and due to the circumvention of the Turkish role that was consistent with the Algerian vision, and took advantage of the surprising developments in the issue of the Western Sahara, with which the army nurtures its intervention in ruling matters, to openly veer back towards the wing of Gen. Mediene and his security surrogates, and to arrange for the return of Gen. Khaled Nezzar, in an attempt to restore the reputation of the army, activate its role through the gates of the Sahara issue, and strengthen the security apparatuses and unify their ranks, ensure the cohesion of the regime and end its divisions which led the various wings to harness the popular dynamism and bulwark themselves behind it, and encouraged France to launch a smear campaign against the Algerian situation and incite chaos, a narrative reflected in Macron’s statement to the French magazine “Jeune Afrique” in which he said that he “supported president Tebboune in his bid to lead the transitional period and help the country overcome its political crisis.” This entails dissolving all the elected institutions and replacing them with a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution before holding fresh presidential and parliamentary elections.

    The smear campaign against the Algerian situation was also reflected in the European parliament’s criticism of human rights abuses in Algeria and in the activities of France’s ambassador, Francois Gouyette, who was slammed by several Algerian MPs and party leaders and accused of meddling in Algeria’s affairs. MP Amira Salim accused him of “hosting the propagators of the interim period at his residence under the guise of supporting free political speech and defending human rights.” She added that “the French ambassador is taking advantage of our political vacuum to spread chaos and incitement, no to a transitional period whatever the cost." Algerian information minister Ammar Belhimer for his part told the official press agency that his country was “facing verbal attacks from France.”

    Gen. Said Chengriha’s restructuring of the army and security agencies has come amidst these atmospheres to neutralise French meddling through which France is attempting to incite the Amazigh to seek secession, by taking advantage of the deteriorating economic situation caused by a drop in demand for oil due to covid-19; Algeria’s oil revenues suffered a setback and dropped by a third, and foreign currency reserves dropped from $200 billion in 2014 to $44 billion this year. The Algerian dinar lost 20% of its value against the euro in 2020 and some Algerians commented that UNESCO may declare the Algerian currency an endangered species.

    The structuring undertaken by Said Chengriha aims also at unifying the stance of the deep state in the face of any popular dynamism or regional changes in the forthcoming period such as the Libyan file, normalisation and the role of the army in foreign missions, especially in Mali where America is attempting to curb French presence now that France has resorted to financing and forming a military force affiliated to her to avert losses among her soldiers, which have been on the increase in recent days.

    5 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    18 January 2021
     

  • Political Observation - Hamas and the Pretext of National Partnership 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Hamas and the Pretext of National Partnership

    No sooner had the victory of Joe Biden in the US presidential elections been announced than the region witnessed a political dynamism through which the rulers wanted to portray Biden to the people of the region as the saviour, and to shroud their treason with the cloak of the phoney détente generated by Biden’s victory over Trump, especially as the president-elect has pledged to oxygenate the lungs of US democracy through which the world leaders breathe, after his predecessor had suffocated them, confiscated their willpower and bullied and humiliated them. Biden has also pledged to pump blood into the arteries of the “peace” process whose stakeholders have been bracing themselves for its resumption, including Netanyahu’s main opponent, the Blue and White party leader, Benny Gantz, in addition to Turkey and Qatar who have influence over Hamas and wish to score points in their favour to help them withstand their regional opponents. Russia is also considered a stakeholder since she is eager to have a presence in the files of the Middle East and offer her services to the Biden administration in her quality as one of the guarantors alongside Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar, with the task of unifying the Palestinian standpoint vis-à-vis the elections, in addition to Iran who has been flirting with the Biden administration and reminding him of her ability to contribute to the stability of the region on the files on his table, including the security of the Zionist entity, the Yemeni war, the Syrian, Iraqi and Lebanese files, the progress of the “peace process”, and normalisation, by mellowing the stance of Hamas and turning a blind eye to its decision to throw itself into the embrace of the capitulators, in the hope of restoring the nuclear agreement and ending the economic blockade imposed on her.

    As the victory of Joe Biden in the elections was announced, Mahmoud Abbas decided to restore security coordination with "Israel" in a manner that seemed as a welcoming of the victory of Biden who cannot rescind Trump’s decrees on al-Quds and its embassy move, or halt the normalisation process on which all the US political forces, the European states, Russia and the traitorous regimes in the Muslims’ lands are in agreement. This means Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to resume security coordination with the Zionist entity and to agree to holding the Palestinian elections was in response to the requirements of the forthcoming phase, and designed to continue deluding the people of Palestine, and lending legitimacy to Tamim, bin Salman, and the herd of normalisers from among the rulers of Arab and Islamic countries.

    As for the "Israeli" government, it responded to Abbas’s move by releasing the frozen funds designated for the Palestinian Authority at the start of this month with the aim of opening a window of contact with Biden’s administration, and enabling Abbas to pay the wages of the Palestinian Authority’s security spies and rejuvenate the Palestinian economy which is on the brink of collapsing and consequently undermining the stability of "Israeli" security, especially as the imminent "Israeli" elections, through which Netanyahu aspires to return to power to avert being prosecuted on corruption charges, represent an unprecedented obstacle in the face of efforts to return to power.

    In the meantime, Hamas suddenly announced on the al-Aqsa channel through the head of its politburo, Ismael Haniyeh, that it had decided to withdraw the condition of holding “concurrent” presidential and legislative elections, as well as the elections of the Palestinian National Council (PNC). Hamas also announced that it had accepted the demand of the Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, to hold the elections consecutively, namely the legislative elections first, then the presidential, and then the PNC elections.

    Hamas’s decision came about one month after the failure of its talks with Fatah in Cairo, under the pretext of the decision by Ramallah’s Authority to resume its security coordination with the Zionist entity. However, Hamas’s sudden retraction and decision to waive its conditions linked to the elections, despite the impact a delay in the PNC elections may have on the file of the refugees, indicates a vile deception by its leaders who had earlier claimed that their suspending of the talks on the elections and the Palestinian reconciliation was elicited by the Palestinian Authority’s decision to resume security coordination with "Israel". However, Hamas soon retracted from its position even though the Palestinian Authority continued its security coordination and justified its sudden U-turn by the pledges made by the guarantor countries, namely Russia, Turkey, Egypt, and Qatar. This exposes the collusion to pave the way for the process of treason, normalisation and capitulation, especially as Hamas realises that Abbas’s authority is attempting to defer the elections of the PNC to pave the way for the Zionist entity to liquidate the file of the refugees by resettling them in exile and excluding them from voting in the PNC elections.

    All this is reminiscent of Hamas’s endorsement of the two-state solution on the 1967 borders in the humiliating capitulation document announced by Khaled Mashaal in Qatar before the end of his chairmanship of the movement’s politburo, which was accompanied by a transfer of leadership to the moderate wing led by Ismael Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar who does not object to having an intimate relationship with the bloodthirsty regime of Bashar Assad, singing the praises of the criminal regime of al-Sisi and coordinating with the traitor Mohammed Dahlan. Hamas then brought Khalil al-Hayya so that he may work with the others to silence the domestic “resistance” and deter the opponents.

    In this context, Yahya Sinwar and Khalil Hayya attempted to endorse the demand of the Palestinian Authority and "Israel" on unifying on the policy of war and peace. During a meeting with the professional syndicates in Gaza on 24 October 2017, Yahya Sinwar said: “Our weapon must undoubtedly be under a unifying national umbrella in which every Palestinian can partake, namely the umbrella of the PLO.” He then foreshadowed, for the benefit of the movement’s cadres banking on the commander of the al-Qassam Brigades, Mohammed Deif, that “he also supports this approach”. Khalil al-Hayya for his part announced through the al-Aqsa channel on 15 October 2017: “We need the decision of war and peace to be unified and this can only be brought about if our institutions were unified and all of us are in there; when Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other forces part of the PLO become one with a single agenda.” This was imposed by the Egyptian intelligence services as one of the items of discussion between Fatah and Hamas when it proposed establishing a Supreme Council that would have a "peace and war decision" so as to enable Hamas and the armed factions to relinquish the option of armed struggle as they have always known that the aim of “national reconciliation” and unifying the decision of “war and peace” under the umbrella of the PLO and Abbas’s authority is to send the “resistance weapons” into retirement.

    It is clear from Hamas’s recent retraction on the electoral arrangements amidst the traitorous normalisation and the regional dynamism celebrating Biden’s election victory, and in light of the changes expected to be occasioned by the "Israeli" elections, that the situation is heading towards a return of the agenda to integrate Hamas and the armed factions under the wing of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, in preparation for resuming the frivolous negotiations and continuing the liquidation of the Palestinian issue at the hands and with the legitimisation of the custodians of resistance and Jihad.

    Since “national reconciliation” and proceeding in the elections is tantamount to surrender and integration into the collaborating political milieu, and the theme of forfeiture and treason, which is no longer a secret to Hamas and the resistance factions, and whose outcome is no longer a secret as the indications point to "Israeli" sovereignty over the land and a Palestinian-Jordanian custodianship over the inhabitants according to a formula to be arranged in due course. The duty warranted by this process on Hamas and the armed factions, if they were serious about preserving the resistance option, is to at least reject the current traitorous process, and to reject being involved in the elections or being part of an authority which is no more than a watchdog for the enemy. They should not comply with the dictates that compel them to shift the direction of their weapons from the usurping enemy and towards their brethren in Aqeedah, blood and arms, in order to break their necks, as per the threat of Sinwar who vowed to break the neck of anyone objecting to “the devastating and abrupt concessions” he was about to make, and “each concession will be greater than its predecessors” in respect of the reconciliation and its fallouts, according to his statement as he assumed his position.

    The concession that Hamas has offered amidst the mood of preparing for Joe Biden to finish what Donald Trump started is not a concession to the partners of the homeland as it has claimed, but rather a delegation for Abbas’s authority to concede and liquidate the Palestinian issue, which makes Hamas accessory to the crime of high treason if this were to happen. It is a sad state of affairs for Hamas, which projects itself as a resistance and jihad movement, to proceed in this path, the path of functional regimes and movements, and to integrate itself into the traitorous farce under the guise of “national consensus”. It is shameful on Hamas to bank on the traitorous regimes instead of resistance and jihad which it knows that the land and the sanctities would not be liberated without. It is also shameful for a movement aware of the requirements of jihad to continue being frail to justify its standpoint at a time when it hoists the symbol of strength “Wa A’iddou” i.e., “make ready against them”, only to break and completely untwist the yarn which it has itself spun and made strong in terms of preparation, and to resort to “necessity”, which if it allowed to halt its resistance, it should not use as a pretext to forfeit, concede and jump on the bandwagon of the collaborators and delegate them to liquidate the Palestinian issue for which its children have been enduring the blockade, hunger and suffering, and sacrificing thousands of martyrs for its sake.

    If Hamas were sincere, it would be naïve to think that the puppets of the US in Qatar and Iran would lend it support for nothing, and that they are not trading in the “resistance” to curry favour with the American idol and offer Palestine to the enemies of Allah (swt) as the price for keeping their thrones.

    What the Muslims and cadres of the Islamic groups should do is warn their criminal and traitorous rulers, not to obey the suspect leaders of their organisations, rebuke them, call them to account and not to please them at the expense of evoking the anger of Allah (swt) who says: “But these followed Pharaoh's bidding - and Pharaoh's bidding led by no means to what is right. He shall go before his people on the Day of Resurrection, having led them towards the fire and vile was the destination towards which they were led.” [Hud-97,98]

    We pray to Allah (swt) to guide our sincere brothers from among the jihadi groups resisting the Zionist occupation to the righteousness of their affairs.

    “O you who believe, do not betray Allah and the Messenger and do not knowingly betray the trusts that have been reposed in you.” [al-Anfal-27]


    29 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    13 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it? 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it?

    Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday 6 January leading to the joint session of Congress to confirm President-elect Joe Biden's election win to be suspended and forced into recess. The protestors gathered earlier near the White House to attend the “Save America Rally" that Trump had called to protest against his defeat in the elections which he continued to insist had been “stolen” from him.

    Violent clashes between the protestors and security forces resulted in the death of four persons and the gathered lawmakers were forced to seek protection before security reinforcements arrived and control of the building was restored four hours after the chaos had erupted.

    The incident coincided with the statement of Mike Pence as lawmakers were preparing to debate Arizona’s second electoral challenge, and with Trump’s tweet claiming that Pence had betrayed them. The Senate had overwhelmingly turned aside a challenge to President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona. These events arose against the backdrop of Trump’s allegations that major electoral corruption had taken place leading to his defeat in the elections. In fact, Trump started alluding to the possible elections’ fraud as early as August 2020 when he said “the only way we lose is if the election is rigged”. This revealed that he had realised the deep state’s plans to let him down, especially when he started being targeted at an early stage on several issues such as his defence of bin Salman in the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, and his abuse of power to exert pressure on Ukraine for electoral interests. Certain parties also threatened to impeach and depose him, to which he commented that he was the victim of treason. It also revealed that his early rebellious statements reflected his intention to cause turmoil and resort to military action against Iran. This was corroborated by his tweet yesterday: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”, and today’s tweet via the account of a Whitehouse spokesperson: “Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th.”

    However, the Electoral College results revealed Biden’s decisive victory. This was expected as the Republican Party was divided on Trump between supporters and opponents, and due to the election strategy of the Republicans which focussed on winning the Senate elections. Moreover, several leading Republican figures had distanced themselves from Trump. More than half of the Republican representatives and seven Senators voted in favour of the challenge against the results of the Arizona vote, which indicates that Trump’s stance was widely supported within the party. Meanwhile, a number of veteran Republicans, especially Senators, recalled the party’s role in protecting the constitution rather than the person. This was clearly reflected in the statements of several representatives and Senators who withdrew from the midterm elections such as Jeff Flick, and held members of the Republican Party responsible for keeping silent over Trump’s actions and his undermining of the constitutional institutions and wondered how the party would recover amidst the presence of more than half its members supporting and defending the policies of Donald Trump.

    By reviewing the aforementioned facts, which revealed the deep state’s inclination towards ending Trump’s tenure and contenting itself with what he has achieved domestically and abroad, such as enacting fiscal laws, bolstering the Republicans’ influence in the judiciary, issuing presidential decrees in bulk, withdrawing from some international treaties such as the Iranian nuclear deal, blackmailing Europe in respect of NATO, demonising China and imposing new realities on the Middle East file, and by also reviewing the merits of yesterday’s events, namely storming of the Capitol building and the domestic and foreign reactions shedding light on “democracy”, which Biden adopted as the cornerstone of his electoral campaign and domestic and foreign policy, in addition to what seemed like collusion by the police with the protestors, we can conclude an attempt by the deep state to rally the ranks, mobilise the masses around the establishment, blame the despicable acts of the Republican Party and the US on Donald Trump, holding him solely responsible, and reiterating America’s democratic leadership and state of law, as well as US leadership of the “free world”. This is perhaps what led Senator Lindsey Graham to say “count me out, enough is enough.”

    And to corroborate this approach, the calls demanding the activation of article 25 of the constitution pertinent to removing the president were accentuated. They were deemed a message to US domestic public opinion stipulating the illegitimacy of Trump’s orders and also to the world, stressing that America is a state of law. US media were unanimous in deliberately portraying yesterday’s events as dangerous as the 9/11 attacks on the US and as an attack on freedom, US democracy and its institutions, especially as the Capitol building represents a symbol of American sovereignty and union. The media also reported that two devices planted near the Republican National Committee headquarters and the Democratic National Committee headquarters were defused.

    The breaches of Donald Trump and his supporters were also placed under the spotlight in order to evoke domestic and foreign reactions calling for adhering to democracy and its mechanism since the US is viewed as the fortress of transparency, freedom and democracy. This was expressed by Russia, China, Turkey, Britain, Germany and France, as well as leaders of the various institutions of the EU who denounced the attack on “democracy”. President of the European Council, Charles Michel, tweeted: “We trust the US to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden, the US Congress is a temple of democracy".

    In America, several Republican and Democrat leaders slammed the “criminal behaviour”, stressing that chaos would neither terrify Congress nor hamper American democracy. At the start of the session, the Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, denounced the "attack on democracy" adding "To those who tried to divert our attention from our responsibility: You failed. To those who participated in defiling the temple of our democracy: Justice will be served". For his part, Senate majority leader Mitchell McConnell stressed: “we will not be intimidated, we will not be kept out of this chamber by thugs, mobs or threats. They tried to disrupt our democracy; they failed. They failed.” Meanwhile, the leader of the Democratic minority in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that what happened on Wednesday was the result of Trump's "words and lies" and would leave "a stain that will not be easily erased."

    Republican Senator Mitt Romney held Donald Trump responsible and said: “What happened here today was an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States.” George Bush for his part issued a statement in which he said: "This is how election results are disputed in a banana republic -- not our democratic republic." Former presidents Clinton and Obama condemned Trump’s behaviour, while Mike Pompeo, a close ally of Donald Trump, slammed the violence of the protestors and their storming of the Capitol building saying “The storming of the U.S. Capitol today is unacceptable. Lawlessness and rioting -- here or around the world -- is always unacceptable.” House Republican Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, for his part said: “Now is the moment to show America we can work best together.” Moreover, Facebook and Twitter, in an unprecedented move, “temporarily” locked Donald Trump’s accounts on Wednesday.

    This consensus by the two parties on condemning Donald Trump corroborates the fact that it is the deep state that decides the leadership position, contrary to what they are attempting to project to the US domestic public opinion and to the world. Trump would not have rebelled against democracy had he not known that it was merely smokescreen and that the decision-making belonged to the capitalist elite and not to the masses. This elite acted according to the requirements of its interests and wanted to discipline the president who wanted to bulwark himself with the masses against it. The capitalist elite is even attempting through this event practised by a section of the white race, and amid the race and ethnic changes in American society, to mobilise the non-white constituent and give it the responsibility of defending and protecting the constitution and the US institutions in future, and dupe them into believing that they would be defending their rights and their votes against the racist and extremist whites. In other words, the deep state wants to elicit a reaction from the other sections of society to protect the upshots of their policies. In a nutshell, the event has been harnessed to turn over Donald Trump’s page, wipe the sins of the capitalist class domestically and the injustice of the US and her extortion of the countries of the world, and portray America as being on equal footing with the rest of the world by demonising Donald Trump and holding him fully responsible for US policies while exonerating the state from his crimes. As for Biden, yesterday’s events will pave the way for his domestic vision and facilitate his task abroad, as the world will welcome his portfolio as an international détente.

    23 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    7 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org

     

     

     

  • Political Observation - Reading the Qatari-Saudi Reconciliation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Reading the Qatari-Saudi Reconciliation

    The agenda of the 41st Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) held at the Maraya Concert Hall in al-Ula near Medina was concluded yesterday Tuesday 5 January. The summit focused on the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation engineered by Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during his visit to Qatar and Saudi last November and finalised on Monday 4 January, according to the New York Post.

    In fact, the manner in which the Saudi-Qatari reconciliation was achieved was not expressive of a solution to the problem that had elicited the embargo on Qatar, inasmuch as expressive of the American volition, the requirements of the presidential transition in the US, the needs of the “Israeli" elections, and the Deal of the Century led by Netanyahu who is facing the spectre of defeat in the forthcoming elections. There was no mention of any Qatari concessions pertinent to the conditions laid down by the blockading countries, namely Saudi, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain, such as closing down Aljazeera and the Turkish military base in Qatar, ending sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood, and scaling down relations with Iran. This means the rapprochement was connected to the imminent change of guard at the White House and preparations to assume the new roles and relationships stipulated by the forthcoming administration, such as Qatar’s relationship with Turkey who has been warned by Biden for not acquiescing to the American administration, in addition to Biden’s standpoint towards bin Salman and the Iranian nuclear deal. This is where the US strategy prepared by the deep state’s institutions intersects with the current arrangements of the Trump administration in serving the liquidation of the Palestinian issue, with all sides attempting to exploit the situation to their advantage.

    On the one hand, Donald Trump and the Republicans are attempting to reap the fruits of their labour right up to the eleventh hour of their tenure and racing against time to lure Saudi into normalisation. Hence, an air or a missile attack against some of Iran’s nuclear facilities or some sensitive locations in Iran, in the form of a US-"Israeli" joint military operation cannot be ruled out, the timing of which would serve both Trump and Netanyahu, especially now that the latter has been dealt a heavy blow by former Likud member of the Knesset, Gideon Sa’ar, who formed a rival party and concluded a host of agreements with right-wing parties such as the far-right Yamina party led by Naftali Bennett. Hence, if the two sides failed in their race against time to lure Saudi into normalisation, their last resort would be drawing Iran into a military confrontation which would impede the process of transferring power at the White House on the one hand, return the security nightmare to the "Israeli" society which has always been the usurping entity’s centre of attention, and remind the Jews of the security Netanyahu had provided for them during his premiership on the other hand.

    In this context, opening Saudi and Qatari airspace, but not the Bahraini and Emirati, at this stage could serve as an indication that Trump and Netanyahu might be preparing to strike specific Iranian positions and provoke her to retaliate deep into "Israel" in order to mobilise support for Netanyahu and throw a spanner in the works of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear file by adding the issue of the Iranian ballistic missiles to the agenda of negotiations. This demand was evidently present at the GCC summit, and it was also the demand of Netanyahu and Trump who dispatched Kushner to attend the summit and oversee its agenda.

    What was also remarkable is the failure of king Salman, al-Sisi and bin Zayed to attend the summit which was presided over by crown prince bin Salman. This means the summit was used as a platform to demonstrate the leadership qualities of bin Salman, pave the way for succeeding his father, send a message to his opponents from within the Saudi clan and gauge domestic reaction. This is why bin Salman sent a congratulatory message to Biden in the presence of Kushner to cajole him and gain his pleasure, knowing that the position of ruler in Saudi is exclusively an American affair.

    The absence of king Salman was already a precedent; as for the absence of bin Zayed, the king of Bahrain and al-Sisi, who were invited to attend the summit, it was due to them realising that the summit was for the benefit of bin Salman, and this is why the summit was shifted from Bahrain to Saudi since it was linked to the requirements of the US presidential transition and the "Israeli" elections rather than to healing the rift between Saudi and Qatar. This is why they contented themselves with justifying their stance by accepting the general framework of the reconciliation; and this narrative was expressed by UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Girgash, who said that “the main idea of the demands was an attempt to lay down the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs.” Hence, the summit’s main focus was linked to the American presidential transition which was reflected by the speedy conclusion of the agreement with its implications, conditions and upshots. It seems that Kushner’s attendance was designed to reassure bin Salman about his future and to reiterate the Republicans’ support for his bid to accede to the throne after Trump’s departure, which means Saudi and Qatar are being prepared to proceed with normalisation, a move which Asharq al-Awsat newspaper heralded by stating that 2021 will be the year of peace, in addition to the closing statement of the summit which corroborated the need to unify the political standpoints, meaning the standpoint towards normalisation, since the other Gulf States’ standpoints are designed by the US so as to make them jostle with each other and perform their roles within the policy of containing the region with its various warring and ideologically diverse sides. Moreover, the standpoint towards normalisation necessitates settling all the inter-Arab disputes ahead of inaugurating the phase of normalisation with the "Israeli" enemy. There is no difference here between American administrations about who will execute the strategy linked to the Zionist entity since it is part of what has been assigned to Trump until the end of his tenure for his successor to build upon. It is worth mentioning that the timing of Saudi and Qatar’s jumping on the normalisation bandwagon, in case Trump departed beforehand, hinges on the results of the "Israeli" elections, which will give Saudi and Qatar a breathing space to kick-start the "Israeli"-Palestinian negotiations and cover their normalisation with the cloak of negotiations and the approval of the Palestinian Authority, not to mention securing the Jordanian standpoint with the appropriate support. It also hinges on the political margins provided by Trump’s departure and his decisive, robust and hasty style, and the arrival of Biden and his soft diplomatic styles which lean towards pragmatism rather than imposing the decided fate on the Palestinian issue. However, generating the conditions for attacking Iran, if an attack has been decided, then, without any impediments from influential forces in the US decision-making mechanism, he is constrained by what serves US national security and does not impinge on the work of the forthcoming administration. This issue has triggered a controversy between the Republicans and the Democrats and a stern warning was issued in a letter from former US Secretaries of Defence, which included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, stipulating clearly that “Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about US national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation.”

    Hence, military action against Iran cannot be ascertained despite the presence of several indications suggesting it is imminent, because it is closer to being a personal interest rather than a national one. This means it could be vetoed by US decision makers to avert anything that may impinge on the work of the forthcoming administration. This likelihood is corroborated by US intelligence puppet, namely Iraqi prime minister al-Kadhimi, who spilled the beans to Iran about "Israeli" attempts to execute an operation targeting US forces in Iraq, which prompted Iran in light of this information to warn against "Israel’s” intention to drag the region into a war.

    22 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    6 January 2021

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - The Blasts at Aden’s Airport 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Blasts at Aden’s Airport

    Several blasts rocked the airport of the Yemeni city of Aden on Wednesday 30 December 2020, soon after an aircraft had landed carrying members of the new government headed by Maeen Abdul-Malik, the formation of which was announced by Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi on 18 December as per the Riyadh Agreement. The attack resulted in 22 deaths and tens of injuries.

    It has transpired from reading the event and its ramifications that since the signing of the Riyadh Agreement on 5 November 2019 between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) which calls for the secession of the south, the Yemeni crisis has been stagnant and not one single article of the Agreement has been executed up until the formation of the government was announced this month.

    It has also transpired from the pressure Saudi has been exerting to stop the fighting in the south since the beginning of December that Mohammed bin Salman has brought about a solution to the military and political problem by hurriedly forming the government as if he was in a race against time, which proves that the event is tightly linked to the transfer of power in the US to the Joe Biden administration who pledged during his electoral campaign to reappraise the relationship of his country with Saudi, withdraw US support for the Saudi war efforts, and, as he described it, help it come out of the quagmire in which it had plunged itself. Biden also pledged to confront bin Salman on several files, such as the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, in order to blackmail him and achieve a host of political and economic gains which are no less important than what Donald Trump has achieved because he needs political achievement to shore up his position and the position of the Democratic Party among the pressure groups and the evangelist movement in the US who aim to lure bin Salman into normalising Saudi’s relations with "Israel".

    Hence, bin Salman’s endeavour to settle the military struggle without stripping the militias of the STC of their weapons and dismantling them or integrating them into the institutions of the “legitimate” government, and to form the government in a manner that provoked the UAE since it included members of the Yemeni Congregation for Reform, and the fact that he overlooked the “Tihama Coalition” which slammed the agreement and warned against its consequences on the national and social fabric, and discarded the women’s component to which the Riyadh Agreement had awarded 30% of government portfolios, all this proves that forming the government was a personal objective for Bin Salman and a solution to his own problem rather than the Yemeni crisis, especially as his suitability to rule has become dependent on a number of files including the Yemeni file, which means that bin Salman’s aim of forming the government amidst these circumstance and amidst his perception of America’s aim of dividing Yemen, does not exceed a media stunt on which the Saudi media has been focusing for the past two weeks in an attempt to prove that bin Salam was capable of pushing all the stakeholders towards the solution, and conveying a message to president-elect Biden ahead of his tenure suggesting that he has paved the way for him to fulfil his pledges regarding the Yemeni file. In fact, there is no real solution to the Yemeni crisis in the offing; forming the new Yemeni government was but an attempt to improve the relationship with the president-elect after the latter had threatened to reappraise his country’s relationship with Saudi. This is corroborated by the trip the head of the STC, Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, made to the UAE immediately following the forming of the government in Riyadh. He failed to accompany them in their trip to Aden as he had been planning to boobytrap the agreement, hamper the work of the government and plan the secession of the south in stages. Minutes after the arrival in Aden of the government, whose formation bin Salman had deemed an achievement that he would offer to the Saudi domestic public opinion and to the forthcoming US administration, the military and political attack at Aden’s airport turned it into a failure for bin Salman rather than an achievement, especially as the Emirates has distanced itself from the process of forming the Yemeni government and deemed it an exclusively Saudi affair; Emirati foreign minister Anwar Gargash tweeted that “targeting Aden’s airport was an attack on the Riyadh Agreement”. The agent of the UAE in Yemen, namely head of the STC Hadi bin Braik, rubbed salt into the wounds of bin Salman by casting doubt on al-Houthi’s involvement in the attack, although the Hadi government pointed the finger at the Houthis. Bin Braik said “it is too early to accuse al-Houthi since he is not affected by the Riyadh Agreement and the forming of the government. Those who screamed in pain from the Agreement and the forming of the government number many.” Meanwhile, the Houthi group, who have discerned the purpose of bin Salman’s hastened undertaking, denied involvement in the attack, and this confirms that thwarting the Saudi solution was agreed by Iran and its surrogate al-Houthi, the Emirates, who is responsible for the security of the airport, and "Israel". The interest of these sides is to keep bin Salman naked in his confrontation with the Biden administration, and to compel him to play the card of normalisation with the Zionists and join the camp of the normalising countries; and this is what Trump and Netanyahu did with the collusion of the Emirates whose involvement in the Yemeni crisis was only designed to prevent the Saudi administration from monopolising the Yemeni file, thwart its endeavour and coerce bin Salman into making the major concessions on the files he needed to execute before being granted the throne, especially the Deal of the Century, in service of America and "Israel".

    The fact that forming the Yemeni government was the only aim of bin Salman and that it was solely linked to his own fate under the upcoming Biden administration is corroborated by his precipitated forming of the government on paper rather than on the ground, keeping the southern militias out of the authority of the state, allowing the formation of the government to overlook the stipulations of the Riyadh agreement and overlooking the complex problems on the ground such as Sumatra’s breakaway from the southern administration. This estrangement of the state and the facts, and oblivion to the situation the US conspired to generate in northern Yemen through the UN’s peace and partnership agreement imposed by the Houthi militias on the eve of Sana’s fall on 21 September 2014, indicates America’s intention to legitimise and entrench the status quo on the basis of “crisis management”, by generating a state of constant chaos and instability, in order to orchestrate it in stages and steer it towards fragmenting Yemen under the umbrella of the alleged legitimacy. It is the very policy America is pursuing in Libya and Syria to restructure them, and the very policy it practised in Sudan and separated its south from the north, and which she is still practising in southern Sudan and tinkering with its leaderships to hamper and destroy the Chinese investments.

    16 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    31 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal

    Britain and the European Union (EU) reached a Brexit trade deal on Thursday 24 December 2020. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said “everything that the British public were promised during the 2016 referendum and in the general election last year is delivered by this deal,” while the EU described the deal as “fair and balanced”.  
     
    Boris Johnson told a press conference “we have taken back control of laws and our destiny… with full control of our waters” …. and for the first time since 1973 we will be an independent coastal state”. Since the British withdrawal from the EU and Brexit trade deal will have a host of consequences on Euro-British relations and since it is linked to America’s strategy towards the EU, it is imperative to review the role of the US in this event.  
     
    The Euro-British relationship had been marked by significant incoherence due to the “principle of sovereignty” and due to Britain’s bias in favour of the US in most continental and international issues, particularly the issue of European security, NATO and economic affairs. 
     
    The principle of sovereignty is the centre of attention for the British people and their historical heritage. Britain views sovereignty and authority as the competency of her parliament, and this was the source of her problems with the EU legislations and with her implementation of the European courts’ laws.  
     
    Britain and the EU needed to urgently reach an agreement to avert disrupting their trade, the size of which is in excess of one trillion dollars, before the 11-month transitional period expired. At the beginning of the month, a week of intense negotiations on Britain’s post-transition commercial and financial relationship with the EU ended in a stalemate with European and British media reports citing “significant differences” such as the EU’s insistence on fishing quotas in British waters, an issue that France raised, in addition to its insistence on implementing the principle of parity on state subsidies for businesses and the mechanism for the resolution of disputes. 
     
    Had a deal not been reached, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and Tax and Customs Authority rules would have been implemented on the commercial and financial dealings between the two sides.  
     
    The Cold War between America and the Soviet Union split the world into two camps, capitalist and communist, or “freedom” and “totalitarianism”, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the start of the American campaign against Islam, the Balkan war, the war on “terror”, and the significant increase in emigration, legal and illegal, a sweeping nationalist and patriotic sentiment was  injected into the world political atmosphere to the point where it became a reactionary atmosphere nurturing the clash of ideological identities and causing the fragmentation of states and standpoints on sectarian and factional grounds, as was the case in the Middle East and the Muslims’ lands, and on the grounds of patriotic and nationalist identity and racial and regional discrimination  in the European political atmosphere and the British intellectual and political atmosphere in particular, ever since the British establishment began implementing the devolution policy in 1999 during Tony Blair’s tenure which involved transferring some competencies of sovereignty to regional parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, followed by granting major cities the right to elect their mayors, as was the case with Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham among others.    
     
    Although it was natural for the masses of those regions to think more about local issues and shape their political concepts and opinions according to the reality of local events, polarisation of opinions and standpoints on nationalistic and continental grounds, in addition to the radical transformation and public divisions due to international and geopolitical issues, such as emigration, the integration of the Muslims and national sovereignty, namely legislation and border protection, has imposed the approach that determines, protects and distinguishes the policies pertinent to national identity, exactly like what Macron is currently carrying out in terms of bullying French Muslims to preserve the secularist identity of the state.  
     
    The British political elite exploited the right-wing media to fuel the polarisation between the calls for nationalism and patriotic sovereignty and the calls for European unity, by demonising the “opportunist” immigrants, criminal gangs, and minorities refusing to integrate into democratic values and isolating themselves from society. That political elite propagated that the “whites” were paying the price for the decrease in salaries, and exploited this notion in the elections, as was the case with Donald Trump in the US.  
     
    Far-right parties like the Lega Nord led by Matteo Salvini in Italy, and the Alternative for Germany, as well as right-wing parties in Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, and France, exploited the growing public opinion against immigration and are in favour of closing borders to influence elections and racist policies. This trend gathered momentum in Western countries and was epitomised in the ascendency of far-right parties in all Western countries, even in the countries that had endured the fascist experiment such as Italy and Germany. All this has been nurtured through an artery from the other side of the Atlantic in a programmed and systematic manner which prepared the grounds for the separatist calls to grow louder and void the EU of its political potency, turning it into a skeleton that America could dress with the attire that suits her objective, namely keeping the EU within its economic framework and preventing it from political jostling and military and security independence.  
     
    In this context, i.e., the context of the political atmosphere and the nationalistic intellectual orientation nurtured by the US, we can explain the British separatist trend and the US standpoint towards the British withdrawal from the EU (Brexit). Despite Obama’s declared standpoints and his support for the Remain campaign, what was however being concocted in reality, especially in terms of inciting public opinion against immigration and terrorism, was geared towards exhorting Britain to withdraw from the EU, divide the united  stance of the conventional major powers, place them on a collision course with the Islamic world in the name of liberal values, and deepen their dependence on America militarily after the exit of Britain who used to be a vital military powerbase to the EU.  
     
    The US aims to reshape the EU away from the red tape in Brussels; in December 2018, Pompeo for his part called for making the EU and its bureaucratic system more responsive and caring towards the masses, and for giving priority to the sovereign interests of nation states and reducing integration within a regional rigid bloc, and that vision was compatible with the vision of Margaret Thatcher that cropped up following the Rome summit of 1990.  
     
    Despite the Republican and Democrat administrations’ difference in the viewpoints and styles of dealing with the European states, be it at the level of bilateral relations or the level of dealing with the EU as a bloc, this does not however impact the American aims of keeping Europe dependent on America in security, military, political and economic matters. There is no difference between the two administrations at the strategic level, especially as the institutional trend allows each administration to work within the framework of the general policy, using the styles and plans that ensure the success of the state’s general policies.  
     
    During the tenure of Donald Trump, we noted that the opening statement of Dana Rohrabacher, head of the Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs at the House of Representatives, which he delivered on 6 December 2017, expressed more clearly the American standpoint. He congratulated the British people following the results of the referendum by saying: “The Brexit vote represents a self-determination of the British people. It reflects an inherent desire of people to control their own destiny rather than be under the domination of another country or another group of countries.”  
    For his part, Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation, was quoted as saying: “Brexit embodies the very principles and ideals the American people hold dear to their hearts: self-determination, limited government, democratic accountability, and economic liberty. A truly free and powerful Great Britain is good for the United States.” 
     
    The US exhortation of the UK to leave the EU could also be deduced from the statements of Donald Trump and his praising of UK prime minister Theresa May, as well as his backing of the British government in the talks with the EU Commission, the pledges he made to Britain and the pledges he made to dissipate her fears of Obama’s warnings against the fallouts an exit from the EU would cause on the economic and financial side, and to the Anglo-American special relationship. Those statements were made during Theresa May’s visit to the White House a week after he took the oath of office. He claimed that Britain would get a strong and comprehensive trade deal. However, British negotiators soon realised during the initial negotiations that Trump’s policy leaned towards maximising the benefit of  Britain’s need for a trade deal. This was corroborated by the head of the American Brexit Committee who said that “in our negotiations, we are seeking to achieve maximum benefit for America.” This explains the American dictates and conditions which were unfair and harmful to Britain and which America could not achieve had Britain still been a member of the EU, and could not achieve through her previous negotiations with the EU. America took a negative approach by voting at the WTO against the agreement between Britain and the EU on sharing the agricultural produce trade quota of the EU. She incited Brazil to object to the deal and then voted in favour of Brazil’s objection.   
     
    America also included a host of harsh conditions to the new civil air transport agreement since the US-EU open skies treaty no longer applies to Britain. And to add insult to injury, America stipulated that Britain should review her procedural and organisational system to match the system adopted in America, thus reducing her chances of achieving an agreement with the 27 member states of the EU and allowing her products to be freely circulated within the EU. America also urged Britain to open her national health service for US companies, which means privatising the NHS, something the British electorates reject.    
     
    This American capitalist, opportunist and greedy trend was expressed by former French ambassador to Washington, Gérard Araud, in an interview with the Guardian on 19 April 2019 where he said: “Basically, this president and this administration don’t have allies, don’t have friends. It’s really [about] bilateral relationships on the basis of the balance of power and the defence of narrow American interests.” He added: “They [the Trump administration] are not thinking in terms of multilateral cooperation first. And secondly, they don’t have any affection towards the Europeans. They treat Europeans the way they treat the Chinese.” He warned Britain against the free trade deal it is seeking post-Brexit with America by saying: “And when the British come for a free-trade agreement, there will be blood on the walls and it will be British blood. It will be GMOs breakfast, lunch and dinner.”  All this reveals that the US endeavoured to take Britain out of the EU in order to weaken it politically and militarily. Trump incited British prime minister Theresa May to be firm in the negotiations and said: “I gave the prime minister my ideas on how to negotiate it and I think you would have been successful. She didn’t listen to that and that’s fine.” Trump’s advice was exposed by Steve Bannon who said that president Trump told May to prepare a negotiation strategy that included exceeding the limits and targets of the demands in the withdrawal deal, and finalise the file within six months using all the cards in her possession, even the legal arrangements. Moreover, it is common knowledge that Tony Blair, the closest UK prime minister to America, was one of the first to call for a withdrawal from the EU, and he built his first political attempt at being nominated for the premiership on the notion of withdrawing from Europe.  
     
    Although the notion of the EU was most probably inspired by the US from the perspective of generating an equilibrium in Europe in the wake of the Second World War due to the impact of European differences on international peace and security, she however was aspiring to this within the framework of complementarity and economic interests, i.e., economic union. However, Europe’s drive towards more European integration through the Rome and Maastricht Treaties in the early nineties and the argument over sovereignty between British political forces had a major impact on the British political orientation and resulted in an open war erupting between senior members of the Conservative Party, in the removal of Thatcher and banishing the Tories from power for 13 years.  
     
    As a result of the domestic political bickering, the role of the media in shaping the public mood for electoral reasons, the Conservative Party’s mobilisation of its forces founded on the “white” component, David Cameron’s harnessing of the same media machine to lure “white” Britons, the British demographic structure which played a significant role in luring the electorate during the referendum on Brexit, and the ensuing course of events, all this culminated into the focus on the British identity and on mobilising  public opinion and portraying the British “white” citizen as a foreigner in his own country; the issue of immigration, and the consequences of globalisation, as well as national sovereignty were politicised with the aim of building the programme of “determining a national identity and exploiting it for electoral purposes and political plans that led to the return of the Conservatives to power in 2010.  
     
    Due to the adversities that the political ruling elite faced between 2007 and 2012, such as moral and financial corruption, Blair’s lying to parliament, and the financial crisis to name but a few, and which evoked popular resentment against the establishment, the elite resorted to blaming “foreign powers”, which included Europe, immigration and the policy of free movement. This was exploited by the US-backed leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, to influence the masses’ tendencies in favour of leaving the EU, and to bolster the popularity of his party at the expense of the Conservatives.  
     
    The political elite were not expecting the contact Farage had had with US right-wing workforce under Steve Bannon’s leadership, and with members of Donald Trump’s campaign, namely Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, as well as Steve Assange, and his harnessing of Cambridge Analytica and social networking, to deepen the popular resentment to the point where it split the country into two camps over Brexit.  
     
    In light of the efforts nurtured by Steve Bannon and the role he played in shoring up the European right-wing, Trump’s support for Boris Johnson, who championed Brexit to assume power, and Trump’s scathing attack on Obama’s standpoint towards the British issue, the position of the US became clear in supporting Britain’s exit from the EU within the framework of the American policy that aims at raising the controversy of identity, not just in America, Britain and Europe, but in the whole world, so that America may remain “first”, i.e., so that she may maintain her supremacy and dominion over the world’s crises and international relations. It is clear that America is behind pushing Europe through the controversy on the identity that Macron is leading due to his hatred and stupidity, to generate a confrontation between Europe and Muslims on the one hand, and Europe and China on the other, in order to control and conduct international relations in a manner guaranteeing her unilateral dominion over the international situation and achieving her interests. America set about tampering with the dynamism of the British political elite in 2014, and nurtured right-wing tendencies through logistical and technical support by mobilising the Breitbart News Network and turning it into a formidable force deep inside British politics; and this was corroborated by Farage who was quoted as saying after the referendum “thank you Breitbart”. The reason behind America’s undertaking is her belief that Brexit will inevitably lead to restructuring the EU and its institutions within a continental bloc whose views will be divided and its need for the US will be greater.   
     
    Britain’s withdrawal from the EU would undoubtedly not have taken place had it not been for the issue of absolute national sovereignty of the legal system and parliament, which to the British masses, are of major importance more than any other people from among the member states; the issue of sovereignty had always been a formidable obstacle in the face of Britain’s integration into the European project. Former Labour Party leader, Hugh Gaitskell, a celebrated opponent of Britain’s integration into Europe, described Britain’s membership of the Common Market as "the end of a thousand years of history".  Since the Maastricht Treaty, Britain had been consistently seeking exemptions from European treaties and organisations; hence, she was the least integrated member in the EU. In his book titled “An Awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community”, Professor Stephen George attributed Britain’s issue with the EU to the “the distinctiveness of the identity and culture of the UK in contrast to that of continental Europe”, which he deemed as Britain’s main grievance with the integrated European project, as the British political elite supported working on the basis of organised inter-governmental cooperation, contrary to the European penchant for federalism and supranational organisation (Brussels), and was in favour of a united market rather than a fiscal union. He also mentioned the great importance the British political elite gave to the right to defend national sovereignty and take its decisions in London as a nation state.  

    10 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h
    24 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org


      

  • Political Observation - The "Israeli" Attack on Gaza  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The "Israeli" Attack on Gaza

    The missiles of the Zionist occupation lit the dark skies of Gaza to expose the deceit of the alleged peace concluded by the depraved collaborating Arab regimes which grovelled en masse and rushed to normalise their ties and establish an alliance with "Israel", like flies attracted to decaying faeces. The jetfighters of the criminal "Israeli" enemy targeted the industrial sectors on which the blockaded people of Gaza depend for their livelihood; and according to news agencies, the "Israeli" jets launched their attack on the morning of Saturday 26 December 2020 under the pretext of retaliating for the two rockets fired from Gaza towards Jewish settlements. The attacks targeted positions of the “Islamic resistance” Hamas at a time when the US and "Israel" are beating the drums of war to the tune of the American and "Israeli" military moves in the region and the rocket attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, and in the midst of Netanyahu and Trump’s attempts to concoct the pretexts of aggression against the people of the region and make political gains on the Deal of the Century, and on other issues pertinent to the Republican Party, and to rescue Netanyahu from his successive domestic crises and prepare him for a fourth election after he failed in maintaining the cohesion of the government and the agreements with his opponents. The "Israeli" aggression against Gaza comes also amid the preparations of Hamas and other “resistance groups” to stage a military exercise, the first of its kind, under the theme of “Robust Cornerstone”, as per the announcement of the joint operations room of the resistance.

    Such evidence is sufficient to explain the "Israeli" attack on the people of Gaza and the resistance groups; it carries a deterrent stipulating that “your weapons and military exercises will be of no use to you, nor will Iran be able to help you if she or her surrogates in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, become the target of a strike before the end of Trump’s tenure.

    It is well known that Netanyahu wants to send the message to the electorate that he is quite capable of dealing with the security threats which have been worrying the settlers ever since their entity was established. The Maariv newspaper republished an old report on the plans of the occupation for Gaza, and reminded its readers that Chief of General Staff Aviv Kochavi was planning to kill 300 Palestinians from Hamas every day in the forthcoming war. Hence, these terrorist attacks fall in essence within the preparations for the next "Israeli" elections and carry an electoral message more than anything else, especially in the presence of a formidable opponent within the right-wing camp threatening Netanyahu’s chances of winning the elections, namely the New Hope party formed by former Likud member of the Knesset and former minister Gideon Sa'ar who could, according to an opinion poll by Channel 12, win 21 seats if the elections were held in coming days, in addition to the other right-wing parties that may weaken Netanyahu’s chances of returning to power with a comfortable majority. This means Netanyahu needs to multiply his efforts to lure more Arab states into normalisation and raise the stakes of an escalation, with the possibility of an "Israeli" military strike against Iran or her surrogates to attract the electorates, as a defeat in the elections would mean his trial on corruption charges.

    13 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    28 December 2020  

    hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - Deliberate Media Hype of Border Tension Between Ethiopia and Sudan 

    سم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Deliberate Media Hype of Border Tension Between Ethiopia and Sudan

    The Sudanese army announced on 16 December 2020 that it had suffered material and human losses following an ambush laid by Ethiopian forces and armed groups deep inside Sudanese lands. Three Sudanese soldiers were killed in the ambush. Sudan responded by dispatching reinforcements to the borders with Ethiopia to recapture what the army described as lands usurped by Ethiopian militia in al-Fashqa region which is situated in the Wilaya of al-Gadarif in eastern Sudan. Ethiopian armed groups seized parts of the Sudanese farmers’ lands in that area after they had expelled them by force. However, that area has been the scene of similar tension for more than 25 years, but it has never been the focus of such media hype by Sudan, and this makes the event and its hidden motive dubious. 
     
    Having explored the incident, and its implications and circumstances further, it transpired that the issue was merely a military action designed to achieve a host of political aims pertinent to demarcating the borders between the two countries and preventing the repeated attacks carried out by Ethiopian militias on Sudanese lands, namely the al Fashqa region in the wilaya of al-Gadarif. The incident occurred as the living conditions deteriorated and the masses grew even more resentful after the government and the army generals had normalised Sudan’s relations with the Zionist entity. Therefore, the top brass and the government set about deceiving the masses into believing that the country was facing a threat and urging them to rally behind their army and their leadership in the face of the foreign aggression, whereas in fact, the incident was nothing but a local border incident through which the Sudanese army wanted to confirm its presence and ability to protect the country and its unity, especially after the ambush carried out by Ethiopian militias occupying the region of al-Fashqa. Nevertheless, the media hype and  public mobilisation to support the army in its military reinforcement on the borders with Ethiopia was designed to dramatize the issue and steer the resentment of the Sudanese masses towards a foreign enemy, thus venting its anger and tension, and diverting their attention away from the first anniversary of the popular intifada, the wretched living conditions, and the traitorous agreement with the Zionist entity. In fact, no clashes took place between the two armies and what occurred was a muscle-flexing exercise designed for local consumption in Sudan and Ethiopia whose regime is in desperate need to distract the masses following the political fissure in the Ethiopian political milieu and Abiy Ahmed’s military campaign against his opponents and rivals.    
     
    What corroborates this farce is the meeting between the Sudanese interim government’s prime minister, Abdullah Hamdok, with his Ethiopian counterpart, Abiy Ahmed, on the sidelines of the IGAD summit in Djibouti, and the announcement of the Sudanese information minister, Faysal Mohammed Saleh, in which he said that the government forces had recaptured most of the lands on the borders with Ethiopia; it is further corroborated by the statement of Ethiopia’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister, Demeke Mekonnen, who headed a delegation to Khartoum and announced that “the borders escalation with Sudan leads to unwarranted tension…. Our firm position is reactivating the current mechanisms and generating a friendly solution concerning settlement and agriculture”. All this proves that the incident was fabricated and exploited to serve the aforementioned aims, and then the issue was de-escalated, and the borders file was brought back to the negotiating table.  
     
    13 Jumada al-Oolah 1442h  
    28 December 2020  
     
  • Political Observation - US & European Sanctions on Turkey 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - US & European Sanctions on Turkey

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Monday 14 December 2020 a bundle of sanctions on the Republic of Turkey’s Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB) under the pretext of Turkey’s acquisition of the S-400 surface-to-air missile system. The sanctions include a ban on all U.S. export licences and authorisations to SSB and an asset freeze and visa restrictions on Dr Ismail Demir, SSB’s president, and other senior SSB officers. Pompeo added in a press briefing that the sanctions on Turkey had been imposed pursuant to Section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which allows imposing economic sanctions on any entity or country concluding arms deals with Russian companies, adding that “today’s action sends a clear signal that the United States will fully implement CAATSA Section 231 and will not tolerate significant transactions with Russia’s defence and intelligence sectors.”

    The American action is mainly driven by Turkey’s decision to end her affiliation to the US after America had opted to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a militia linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that advocates the separation of the Kurds’ areas from the Turkish entity. Speaking on the sidelines of the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Head of the US Special Operations Command, General Raymond, revealed in 2017 that the name given to the SDF was requested by America to cover up the activities of the People's Protection Units (YPG) and their link to the PKK which Turkey has been fighting for two years and which is classified as a terrorist organisation in Turkey and the US. 

    The Kurdish issue touches on the nationalist foundation on which the Turkish regime is built, and being nonchalant towards it undermines the political future of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), and even the future of any Turkish political party adopting a stance leading to compromising the unity of the state, as the nationalist aspect and the unity of the Turkish territory constitute the main source from which Turkish political parties derive their popular support and legitimacy in power, including the secularist nationalist parties affiliated to the US. Hence, political parties in Turkey may differ in their intellectual and doctrinal benchmarks, but they all converge on the nationalist aspect since it is deeply rooted in the awareness of the Turks and because of its impact on the inclinations of the electorate.

    The Kurdish issue cropped up as a result of the US project supporting the rise of a Kurdish entity which would have entailed slicing parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran; and these countries for their part converged on the aim of preventing the Kurds from establishing their entity, contrary to American volition.

    And following the failed coup attempt of 2016, tension between America and Turkey increased and Erdoğan’s trust in the US slumped to its lowest levels. The coup attempt led to widening the rift between Erdoğan and America, who was behind the coup, and resulted in a significant rapprochement between Russia and Turkey, especially after Erdoğan had concluded a peace deal with Putin following the downing of the Russian jetfighter. The purchase of the Russian surface-to-air defence system S400 was Erdoğan’s gesture of goodwill to Putin who deemed widening the wedge between Turkey and the US and heightening the tension between NATO member states a gain at a strategic and nationalist level, as well as a personal gain that bolstered his domestic popularity, and who managed to take full advantage of the collapse of US-Turkish negotiations on the Patriot missile deal as America refused to include the transfer of the technology in the contract.

    In this context, i.e., the context of tension between Russia, who is eager to widen the rift between Turkey and NATO member states, and America who was infuriated by the Russian arms deal due to the impact it had on making Turkish armament independent from America’s control over its efficacy, as she would normally do with defence and attack systems manufactured in America, and due to the impact of the Russo-Turkish military cooperation on Turkey’s reliance on the US and NATO in the midst of America’s endeavour to prevent Turkey from achieving independence in full military industrialisation and joining the club of arms-producing countries and bring her back to her stable, sometimes through the carrot and other times through the stick of economic pressure and soft sanctions.

    Moreover, and in this context, we can explain why America, Canada, Japan, and Germany suspended their export licences for the equipment Turkey needs for the production of tanks and drones. This resulted in Turkey failing to deliver tanks to Pakistan, losing the $1 billion contract. This embarrassed Erdoğan who has always boasted during party rallies about Turkey’s success in reducing Turkey’s dependence on foreign weapons systems from 80% to 30%. We can also explain in the same context America’s attempt to hamper Turkey’s efforts to achieve independence in military industrialisation and drive a wedge between Turkey and Russia by giving Russia’s arch enemy, Ukraine, the green light to establish closer ties with Turkey and share with her a number of vital military technologies such as turboprop engines, diesel engines, aircraft electronics, radar and surveillance systems, missile engines, and electronic power steering systems. Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, Reznikov Oleksii, visited Turkey in August 2020 to bolster the alliance between the two countries by selling about 25% of the JSC Motor Sich Public Joint Stock Company to Turkish firms, causing Putin domestic embarrassment in respect of his relationship with Erdoğan due to the Russian people’s resentment towards the Ukrainians.

    US and European sanctions on individuals are by and large deemed as diplomatic pressure and soft power reflecting America and Europe’s standpoint. Hence, they are merely specific messages pertinent to specific issues. This applies to the US and European sanctions on Turkey. The US sanctions were imposed following the EU’s sanctions on Turkish officials announced during the EU summit in Brussels on Thursday 10 December 2020 against the backdrop of Turkish gas exploration in Eastern Mediterranean and the tension between Turkey, Greece and the Greek Cypriot government, which France describes as “unilateral and provocative actions”. Hence, the European sanctions on Turkey are designed to shore up the confidence of smaller European countries in the EU and in Europe’s image in general, following the Turkish standoff with France. They are also a warning message to Erdoğan designed to dissuade him from banking unduly on the Europeans differences pertinent to the EU standpoint vis-à-vis his country.

    As for the US sanctions on Turkey, they are designed to reassure the European states which felt let down that she has not abandoned them as Macron claimed, and to deter Erdoğan from deepening his relationship with Russia, especially following Putin’s praising of Erdoğan few days ago.

    The American standpoint towards Turkey is strategic and unaffected by a change in the administration; the sanctions were approved by the US Congress years ago during the tenure of Donald Trump who deferred their implementation for tactical reasons and for mutual interests, but now the time has come to express the standpoint and send the message through soft sanctions.

    These sanctions are also designed to issue a warning to Turkey who issued instructions last week to the Syrian armed groups loyal to her to attack Kurdish positions in Ayn Issa in the northern countryside of Raqqah after the Kurds rejected a Russian proposal to hand that area over to the Syrian regime. The attack on the Kurds was carried out following a Russo-Turkish understanding and coordination.

    Erdoğan deemed the recent US sanctions a flagrant infringement of Turkish sovereign rights. He said that the main aim of the sanctions was to hamper Turkey’s progress in defence industrialisation and to keep her dependent on foreign technology. This means Erdoğan has perceived the purport of the sanctions and that Turkey should expect further pressure during Biden’s tenure.

    8 Jumada al-Oolah 1442
    23 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - Normalisation: A Phase of Liquidating the Palestinian Issue 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Normalisation: A Phase of Liquidating the Palestinian Issue

    US president Donald Trump confirmed on Twitter his recognition of Morocco’s full sovereignty over Western Sahara and pledged to offer financial support for development projects in Morocco and the Sahara as well. This came after his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, had visited Morocco, where he received a warm welcome by king Mohammed VI, and confirmed that recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara hinged on the kingdom’s normalisation of its ties with "Israel".

    This announcement came following a catalogue of preludes and arrangements whose outcomes were expected and which Trump crowned with twitter; it has become clear that the US arrangements for Trump’s remaining tenure at the White House aim at reaping the fruits of the deal that Trump had concluded with the collaborating Arab rulers in favour of "Israel" while depriving the Democratic Party from taking the credit, now that the involvement of more traitorous and collaborating regimes in the treason of normalisation with the usurping entity has ripened. Trump was brought to power to achieve these undertakings which will bolster the chances of the Republican Party in dominating the Senate in the next midterm elections and returning to the White House in the next presidential elections. This was evidently reflected in Donald Trump’s electoral campaign which focused on his historic achievement in normalisation between "Israel" and Arab states; he said: “There have been two peace agreements with Israel in the last 72 years. This is now the second peace agreement that we have announced in the last month, and I am very hopeful that there will be more to follow.” It is true that this achievement could not help him win the elections due to the political approach of the domestic and international ruling institutions and the high-level interests of the US, as well as the approach dictated by reality, but achieving maximum political gains, such as luring more Arab regimes to normalise ties with "Israel" and depriving Biden from reaping the benefits is considered an investment for the Republican Party in the bid to shore up its evangelical electoral base and the Zionist lobby; it is also considered a debt on the neck of the evangelists and the Jewish lobbies that has to be settled in the future, especially since Netanyahu represents the optimum choice for the evangelical rightwing and the Republican Party and has to be helped in his domestic crises through normalisation with the Arab agents, unlike his relationship with the Democratic Party which was tinged with tension with the administration of Obama and Biden around the end of their tenure.

    Those preludes and arrangements are reflected in luring Iran into a military confrontation, either through an understanding with the Iranian leadership or through coercion, heightening tension in the region through military or other means in order to justify the official Arab alliance with "Israel", especially of Saudi. Another arrangement was also reflected in the trial balloon undertaken by the Sultanate of Oman when one of its schools displayed a map of the region in which Palestine was replaced with "Israel", and the ensuing uproar it caused was used to gauge the reaction of Omani public opinion.

    However, the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and the Saudi- Qatari reconciliation are the most noteworthy events indicating what is being concocted in respect of the justifications paving the way for alliance and normalisation with "Israel".

    As for the Arab Maghreb, preparations for announcing normalisation and alliance between Morocco and "Israel" started from when the UAE and 16 African states, and then Jordan, opened consulates in Western Sahara without any objective justification; this was followed by stirring up the waters between Morocco and the Polisario Front with the incident of al-Karkarat, after which the Polisario announced its withdrawal from the ceasefire mediated by the UN and declared war on Morocco. This was the event through which the profile of king Mohammed VI was embellished; he was projected as a hero whose “decisive” military action reopened the passage for the safe movement of people and goods between the Moroccan kingdom, Mauritania, and the African countries south of the Sahara. The rulers of Algeria invested in military action to divert the masses’ attention away from the domestic crises and exploited the Moroccan normalisation with "Israel" to entrench the status quo in the absence of President Abdul Majid Taboun and pave the way for effectuating article 107 of the constitution that gives the president or those acting on his behalf wide-ranging competencies to preserve the institutions, security, and stability of the state. In this context, the official magazine of the Algerian army stated that “the Algerians should be fully prepared to confront the threat posed by the sides which are belligerent towards the security of the region,” especially amid France’s provocations and incitements with the aim of destabilising the Algerian status quo. This was reflected in Macron’s statement to the French magazine, Jeune Afrique, in which he said he “backed President Taboun in leading a transitional period to help the country overcome its political crisis,” which means dissolving all the elected institutions and replacing them with an institutional council to draft a new constitution for the country, before holding fresh presidential and parliamentary elections. This provocative approach was also reflected in the European Parliament’s criticism of human rights abuses in Algeria and in the activities of French Ambassador to Algiers, Francois Gouyette, who was accused by parliamentarian, Amira Salim, of “hosting those who promote a transitional phase at his residence under the guise of supporting freedom of political expression and defending human rights”. This was met by a barrage of denouncements and criticisms and Algerian information minister, Ammar Belhimer, told the official press agency that his country was “facing verbal attacks from France.” Some Algerian parliamentarians, leaders and political parties slammed what they referred to as French meddling in Algerian affairs. Amira Salim said the “French ambassador is exploiting the void in our political scene to spread chaos and incitement, and we will not accept a transitional period at any cost, and parliament will abort it.” Meanwhile, Algerian prime minister, Abdul Aziz Jarrad, announced in his speech in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of 11 December 1960 demonstrations that “Algeria is targeted and there are several dangerous issues in our regional sphere that are aimed at destroying the stability of the region.” And in reference to the Moroccan-"Israeli" normalisation, he said “there is a genuine foreign determination to help the Zionist entity reach our borders, and the political class should work towards the stability of the country.”

    In fact, all that seems surprising in terms of events is nothing but traitorous actions, deception and dishonesty, perpetrated by the puppet rulers against the people of the region in order to tame them and control the situation to serve the American plan reflected in the Greater Middle East Initiative, especially the Deal of the Century and the liquidation of the Palestinian issue. Hence, whether America and "Israel" staged a military strike against Iran or contented themselves with limited actions, this would not deviate from the agenda of heightening the tension, paving the way for a return to negotiations on the Iranian nuclear and missiles file, goading Saudi and the rest of the Gulf States to establish alliance and normalisation of ties with "Israel" in service of America, the Republican Party and Netanyahu in particular, in exchange for the rulers keeping their thrones. 

    As for the Maghreban front, Morocco’s normalisation is designed to break the ice and pave the way for dragging Libya, Tunisia and Mauritania to the bottom of the quagmire in which the Arab collaborating rulers have fallen. Morocco’s normalisation with the criminal entity was no surprise because the doomed king Hassan II acceded to the throne with the support of "Israeli" intelligence services whose agents, according to leaked reports, met the leader of the Moroccan opposition, Mahdi Ben Barka, and spied on him, and then informed king Hassan II that Ben Barka sought their help in his attempt to topple him and enabled the king to get rid of him.

    As for Tunisia, the path towards normalisation has already been paved since the parliamentarian bill criminalising normalisation was thwarted and president Kais Saied supported the Tunisian stance rejecting the denunciation of the Emirati normalisation with "Israel" through the abstention of Tunisia’s representative from voting in favour of the Palestinian draft resolution at the League of Arab States. Kais Saied then appointed the second-in-command in Tunisia’s Interest Office to the Zionist entity, Tarek al-Adab as Tunisia’s ambassador to the UN. It is also common knowledge that Mauritania, which is dominated by Emirati influence, was the third Arab state after Egypt and Jordan to establish diplomatic ties with "Israel" at ambassadorial level; its official relations with the criminal entity started in 1996 during the tenure of president Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya. Hence, announcing its normalisation with "Israel" will not be surprising.

    As for the stance of the Algerian authorities vis-à-vis normalisation, it is nothing but propaganda for domestic consumption with the aim of cajoling the Algerian public opinion that loves Palestine, and containing the domestic tense situation, especially amid the absence of President Taboun, which is expected to be lengthy. As for the official communiqué of the Polisario Front in which it expressed its resentment towards the US decision by stating that its “struggle for self-rule will continue”, it confirms that they are part of the saga through which the Moroccan-"Israeli" normalisation was orchestrated.

    Despite the Arab rulers’ addiction to collaboration, treason and depravity, and despite what the Islamic Ummah has suffered in terms of setbacks, tribulations and humiliations, she has, however, always emerged from her setbacks stronger and more resolute thanks to her sincere children. We have no doubt whatsoever that the Ummah of Mohammed ﷺ who banished the Jews from Khaybar is capable of solving her own problems, exacting revenge from her collaborating rulers and abolishing the Jewish entity once and for all, as we have been promised by Allah and His Messenger ﷺ. Hence, For the like of this, then, let them labour, those who labour.

    28 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    13 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

     

  • Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia

    The Ethiopian armed forces announced on 28 November 2020 that they had seized control of the city of Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray Region, following the fierce battles which erupted on 4 November between the central government in Addis Ababa and the regional government in the Tigray Region. In order to perceive the reality of the war in Ethiopia and the causes lying behind it, it would be imperative to discern the nature of the forces jostling for the centre of power.

    The centre of power in Ethiopia has always been in the hands of the Amhara ethnic group who founded the modern Ethiopian state which consists of several ethnicities and various nationalities. By the end of the 19th century, Abyssinian king Menelik II annexed the predominantly Muslim Oromo Region, and with the help of Britain, he succeeded in gaining the region of Bani Shankoul which was part of Sudan; and at the end of the Second World War and after the defeat of Italy, Britain handed the Region of Ogaden over to Ethiopia although it was part of Somalia’s lands.

    The current state of Ethiopia has in fact been artificially founded due to British colonialism; this is because her geographic position, namely Abyssinia, is located around the Amhara regions and parts of Tigray where its capital, the city of Aksum, is located, and where the ruling palaces of Abyssinian kings were located, as well as the tomb of al-Najashi on whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ offered the janaza prayer in absentia.

    Power remained in the hands of the Amhara kings of Abyssinia until 1974 when the Provisional Military Administrative Council ousted their last emperor Haile Selassie, abolished the monarchy and established a communist state. From 1980, America started sponsoring several liberation movements in Ethiopia, especially in Tigray, Eritrea, Ogaden and Oromo.

    In 1991, the last Marxist ruler in Ethiopia, Mengistu Haile Mariam, was deposed by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which was a group comprising several fronts, the most important of which was the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) under the leadership of Meles Zenawi, which eventually dominated the government and the state’s institutions. In parallel to this and under US auspices, i.e. following the London conference coordinated by Herman Cohen, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) headed by Isaias Afwerki seized power in Eritrea in the same year and declared independence in 1993 following a mock referendum. Meles Zenawi, a Tigrayan, continued in power until he died in 2012. He was succeeded by his deputy, Hailemariam Desalegn, who, like his predecessor, was an orthodox but from the southern provinces. However, it seems that the ethnicities representing the deep state in Ethiopia, especially Amhara and the Tigray, were averse to his tenure and several protests and demonstrations against him took place which finally forced him to tender his resignation. A consensus was then concluded, and Abiy Ahmed Ali took office in March 2018 with the backing of America which was reflected in offering him the Nobel Peace Prize after he had visited the al-Buraq Wall.

    Although many individuals attribute Abiy Ahmed to the Oromo ethnicity representing 35% of Ethiopia’s population because of his Muslim father, he however represents the interests of the Amhara ethnic group, i.e. 25% of the population, because of his links to his Christian mother. The Amhara used to represent the weight of the deep state in Ethiopia since the days of the Abyssinian kingdom. Moreover, Abiy Ahmed is a Protestant, and this is why America has been backing him politically although the Orthodox represent the majority of the Ethiopian Christian sects. He has also been supported by the Muslim Oromo ethnic group, exactly as was the case with his predecessor Meles Zenawi when he seized power in 1991.

    Abiy Ahmed is the first official from the Oromo ethnic group to be chosen by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) for the post of prime minister after 27 years of being the ruling party. Abiy Ahmed took office following the protests that erupted in the province of Oromia in early 2018 due to the deteriorating political and economic conditions; the reins of power were smoothly passed on to him following a host of understandings with the EPRDF in April 2018. However, he turned on his allies within the front and set about purging the government of the old guard he had known very well since his days as head of the intelligence services.

    Historically, the US has deepened her hegemony over the Horn of Africa region and marginalised France whose Djibouti military base is the largest in Africa, and since 2002, the US has given Germany a role at the expense of the French. Ethiopia for her part is a vital state for America in terms of controlling the region. America backed her in striking the military pockets in Eritrea and then participated in ending the rift between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Moreover, the rulers of the UAE were instructed to contribute to America’s endeavour to deepen her influence in Africa. America managed to corroborate her influence in the Horn of Africa through Djibouti, which is deemed as the focal state in terms of energy and maritime security in the Red Sea.

    Although the domestic struggle may lead to fragmenting Ethiopia, and it may also expand beyond her borders, the unity of Ethiopia within a federal framework would continue to represent an interest to the US due to the intricate ethnic composition in the Horn of Africa and its surrounding regions, which if it were to flare up, would change the geopolitical situation in the entire region which America has worked assiduously to maintain stability and remove all rifts between its countries.

    By pursuing the struggle taking place since the protests of Oromia which erupted in July 2020 following the killing of a famous popular singer, in addition to the armed struggle that broke out last month, we conclude that it started as a result of president Abiy Ahmed’s undertakings and his rifts with the deep state represented by the political parties, senior military officers and the leaders of the provinces who backed him to assume power.

    The struggle erupted on 5 November following a clash between the president and the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), which is part of the former ruling coalition, namely the EPRDF that ruled Ethiopia for three decades. According to successive reports, there are several deep rifts between the president and the EPRDF, dating back to the president’s decision to turn on the front, dissolve it, oppress its leaders and turn it into a party under the name of “Prosperity”. This was viewed by the leaders of the front as a treason. Even the tribe of the president, the Oromo, believe that he has failed to fulfil his promises in respect of restoring an equilibrium between them and other ethnicities. This led to the rebellion of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) who refused to hand the leaders of the EPRDF to Abiy Ahmed and organised the elections of the province in isolation from the federal government, especially after the president had postponed the presidential elections under the pretext of the coronavirus pandemic. Abiy Ahmed rejected the TPLF’s undertaking and suspended financial aid to the province last October. This means that the circumstances in which the clashes erupted are domestic and fraught with complications in respect of the Ethiopian ethnic makeup, and personal, partisan and regional interests, exactly like the domestic struggle of southern Sudan. There is nothing to link the Ethiopian tussles to any regional or international issues in terms of any objective reason for their eruption. It seems that the strong links and interests America has had with president Abiy Ahmed since he headed the Ethiopian intelligence services explain why she has turned a blind eye to the campaign against his opponents who became a spent force after she had exploited them in the regional struggles with Eritrea and whose expulsion from the scene has become a necessity dictated by the US interests in the province as a whole, an agenda which Abiy Ahmed has been implementing and which has led to the political rifts and armed struggle.

    It is clear that the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) is well versed with US interests and is attempting to sow dissension in the hope of widening the crisis to Eritrea, knowing that it was averse to signing the peace treaty in 2018 as its policy, in its quality as a part of the coalition government since the end of the war in 2002, had been based on isolating and marginalising Eritrea and its president, Afwerki, who was deliberately reluctant to achieve any progress in the negotiations with Hailemariam. Moreover, the TPLF was infuriated by the peace treaty that led to bringing Afwerki and Eritrea out of isolation and to Ethiopia surrendering the legal rights of the Tigrayans’ historical claims for the Eritrean lands inhabited by ethnic tribes linked to Tigray.

    What confirms Tigray’s attempt to widen the struggle is the statement of the Tigray province’s president, Debretsion Gebremichael, in which he said that “Eritrea has dispatched soldiers and tanks to support Ethiopia.” Hence, this struggle is set to have a major impact and huge fallouts on Eritrea because any revolution in Tigray will extend to Eritrea due to the Tigray ethnicity living there; this is what US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, warned against in a telephone call to Abiy Ahmed, according to Reuters which quoted State Department spokesman, Cale Brown, as saying that Pompeo “reiterated the United States’ grave concern regarding ongoing hostilities and the risks the conflict poses”, i.e. the risks of the crisis spreading to neighbouring countries. African newspapers such as Ghana’s Daily Graphic reported on 30 November that missiles that were fired by the TPLF on Eritrea in mid-November has turned a domestic struggle into a transborder one. The purport of what the US State Department has published denotes America’s desire to contain the crisis and generate a domestic solution. And what Abiy Ahmed has carried out, purges within the government and what they entailed in terms of armed conflict, forms part of the agenda he has been appointed to execute.

    17 Rabi’ al -Awwal 1442h
    2 December 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org 

  • Political Observation - The Political Context of the Vigorous Activities in the Middle East 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Political Context of the Vigorous Activities in the Middle East 
     
    Following his victory in the US elections, Joe Biden announced a host of preconceived standpoints towards key issues in the Middle East and the style in which he would tackle them. However, attention and divergent predictions focused on the possibility of Donald Trump rebelling against the results of the elections and executing a military strike against Iran, especially as he has demonstrated together with his Secretary of State, Pompeo, a persistence to cling on to power.    
     
    Meanwhile, the Middle East region witnessed remarkable and coherent political activity. Saudi monarch, King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, made an address in which he warned against Iran and hinted at the kingdom’s readiness to normalise its ties with "Israel". This was followed by a surprise tripartite summit in Abu Dhabi to which America’s godfather in the region, Emirati crown prince Mohmmed bin Zayed, invited king Abdullah II of Jordan and king Hamad bin Issa of Bahrain. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority announced the restoration of security coordination with the Zionist entity while "Israel" launched an air raid against Iranian military bases near Damascus. The Houthi group, for its part, announced that its missile force had succeeded in targeting an Aramco distribution station in Jeddah with a Quds winged missile. 
     
    "Israeli" media outlets leaked the news of prime minister Netanyahu’s secret flight to Saudi today with "Israeli" Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen. The jet departed on Sunday 22 November 2020 from Ben Gurion airport and was in Saudi for four hours, while Pompeo was meeting with Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. This was later corroborated by "Israeli" official radio. Despite Saudi’s denial of the report, the fact that the "Israeli" defence minister and leader of the Blue and White party, Benny Gantz, slammed Netanyahu for leaking the report confirmed that the visit did take place.
     
    On the other hand, king Salman telephoned president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan within the context of inviting him to attend the G20 Summit and mending ties with Turkey. This was followed by the statement of Saudi foreign minister, prince Faysal bin Farhan Aal Saud, during an interview with Reuters in which he said that his country supported full normalisation with "Israel" but a complete and permanent peace agreement guaranteeing a state for the Palestinians with dignity should be approved first. He added that the new US administration would pursue the policies which would help achieve regional stability. With regard to the relationship with Qatar and Turkey, prince Faysal said the kingdom had “good and splendid ties with Turkey and there are no communiqués indicating the presence of an official boycott of Turkish products,” and that “Saudi, together with the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain, continue to seek ways to end the rift with Qatar though they are still seeking to tackle some legitimate security fears”.
     
    Having examined the sum of these moves in light of the change in the US administration and what it would entail in terms of changes in the style of executing the files of the region, it has transpired that the regimes of the region are endeavouring to condition their policies and their relationships to suit the approach of the forthcoming US administration. The moves do not indicate that Donald Trump is preparing a military strike against Iran, even though he and the evangelical rightwing have the desire to do so in service of Netanyahu who is still under pressure due to the corruption charges haunting him; this is because there is a difference between the president’s desire to undertake a military action and the US institutions allowing him to execute it, especially as military tasks in the US are restricted to what undermines US national security and they have to be justified. 
     
    It is true that the Houthi group attacked Aramco station in Jeddah two days ago, which is deemed as a threat to US national security, and that it could be used as a pretext to justify a military strike, especially as Iran announced that she had injected uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) into the cascade of advanced IR-2m centrifuges installed at an underground plant in Natanz according to the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI), and that she had started installing a cascade of IR-4 centrifuges, but this came as part of Iran’s endeavour to pave the way for placing her file on Biden’s table with the aim of returning to the negotiating table and alleviating the economic sanctions rather than escalating the situation. This prompted Netanyahu to send a message to Biden yesterday stipulating that the nuclear agreement could not reconsidered without major changes. The Houthi’s attack and the Iranian provocation come in the context of Pompeo’s visit and his meeting with bin Salman with the aim of terrifying him and rushing him into normalising his ties with the Zionist entity, and thus scoring another point in favour of the evangelical movement and the Republican Party to invest it in the battle for the Senate midterm elections and in promoting Pompeo for the next presidential elections. This could also be viewed as part of the means of blackmailing and exerting pressure on bin Salman who is fearful of Biden’s administration and petrified of the fallout of normalisation, especially as Iran had published in the Teheran Times a map demonstrating the efficacity of Iranian ballistic missiles in targeting US bases in various strategic locations including Kuwait, Saudi, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and the Emirates just ahead of Pompeo’s visit to Saudi.
     
    Hence, the political activities in the region indicate that America aims to consolidate what has already been achieved in respect of the Deal of the Century. This approach is deduced from the Egyptian-Sudanese manoeuvres which aim to protect the government of normalisation and alliance under the leadership of Abdullah Hamdok and the army, against any popular protest that may impinge on the relationship with "Israel". It is also corroborated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which recommended to the US administration speeding up its backing of the Sudanese regime to avert the threat of a popular uprising, and instructing Saudi and the Emirates to support the regime of al-Burhan and Hamdok, since preserving the Sudanese regime is deemed a US priority necessitating putting an end to the polarisation of the Sudanese leaders and the jostling with Qatar to attract them. 
     
    We conclude from the aforementioned that the fervent activity falls within the context of imposing a host of new realities on the ground in a preemptive manner, and preparing for the forthcoming phase under the Biden administration; this includes Erdoğan’s recent proclivity to calm the situation with Europe that hopes Biden will back it in the confrontation with Turkey, especially as Turkey’s economic performance has recently declined and most probably induced Erdoğan’s speech in which he solicited de-escalation two days ago, and indicated his wariness of Biden’s intentions of backing his domestic and foreign opponents.
     
    Also, from the activities of the Arab states, we conclude their inclination towards completing alliance and normalisation, especially between Saudi and "Israel", with the aim of liquidating the issue of Palestine. We can expound in this context the Jordanian preparations to exact an approval for the result of the Deal of the Century, specifically from the “East Jordanian Constituent”, through the parliamentarian formation and the Jordanian Senate. We can also expound why the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas wants to revive the negotiations and remove the obstacles facing them by restoring the treacherous security coordination which not only damages the struggle of the Ummah’s children in Palestine but also to justify for Arab countries their alliance and normalisation with the Jewish entity, especially Saudi, and by complying with the "Israeli" demand to freeze the salaries of the Palestinian prisoners and the martyrs’ families, thus turning their issue from an issue of resistance to a charity case. This also sends a warning to the children of the Ummah in Palestine against resisting and struggling against the army of occupation, not to mention the Palestinian Authority’s inclination towards eradicating the culture of “resistance” from the education curricula and purging the memory of future generations of the values encouraging resistance and Jihad and turning them into servants and slaves to the usurping entity. This prompts us to constantly remind the Muslims to denounce loudly and clearly the traitorous regimes and collaborating rulers, and to reject all the outputs of their conspiratorial political activity. 
     
    Furthermore, we exhort the children of the Ummah to call to account her forces, parties, scholars and dignitaries for their deafening silence and reluctance to seize the initiative and put an end to the treason of the regimes and rulers and their conspiring against Muslims. We remind those capable of generating change that they are perpetrating the most appalling treason against their Deen and causing the most grievous harm to the Ummah by keeping silent over falsehood. They ought to think about the judgement, which if they escaped today, will not escape on the day wealth and children will be of no avail save for those who come before Allah the Almighty with a heart free from evil. 
     
    8 Rabi’ al-Thani 1442h 
    23 November 2020 
     
    hizbuttahrir.org
     
  • Political Observation - Macron Orders France’s Muslims to Apostatise 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Macron Orders France’s Muslims to Apostatise

    “It is Satan who is trying to get you to fear his allies, so do not be afraid, but fear Me, if you are believers” [Aal-Imrân-175]

    On Wednesday 18 November, French president Emmanuel Macron received leaders of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) and its unions to explore the outlines of establishing a National Council of Imams to be responsible for accrediting imams, and to draw a charter confirming that their religion is “not political”.

    The office of the French president said Macron had asked his collocutors to draw up a new charter within fifteen days that must include recognition of the “values of the Republic” by which the CFCM and its nine unions must abide. The presidential office stressed also that Macron had given the Council’s officials a two-week ultimatum to draw up the charter.

    Macron emphasised that the new charter should include an acknowledgement of the values of the republic, specify that Islam in France is a religion and not a political movement, and put an end to foreign involvement in French mosques.

    This obviously places the Muslims in France before a test of their values; either they fall into the quagmire of liberal secularism and abandon their Aqeedah, the rules of their religion and their dignity, and consequently Muslim women would abandon their chastity, or face punishment. If this were not terrorism, what would terrorism be then? And if this were not an abuse of human dignity and freedom of creed of which Macron claims to be a protector, what would then be considered a violation of human dignity and what would then be viewed as protection of religious rights?

    All Western countries dread the demographic expansion of the Muslims in Europe and America as much as they dread the erosion of their liberal values which, compared with the chastity and humanity of the Muslims, appear animalistic. Hence, it is very likely that this policy falls within the framework of confronting the Muslim demographic problem as well as tackling Islam itself. Investigative journalist Dr Nafeez Ahmed reported that “three months before the Trump campaign announced its Muslim ban, a man employed by a Conservative party lobby group linked to Boris Johnson told Trump advisor, Frank Gaffney, that a Muslim ban is the solution to the Muslim demographic timebomb”. Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, for his part told reporters after a cabinet meeting on 11 November 2020 that “In the fight against political Islam – the ideological basis behind it – we are going to create a criminal offense called ‘political Islam’ in order to be able to move against those who aren’t terrorists but are preparing the ground for it.”

    In fact, the demands dictated by Macron to the leaders of the Islamic community could lead those who respond to them and believe in their content to committing flagrant Kufr; they could also enable Macron to overcome his domestic and foreign crises and give him the antidote he has been persistently seeking to fend off the domestic and foreign critics and lure the far-right movement. Abusing the dignity of the Muslims in Europe and harassing them could turn into a general policy for the European states and consequently, constraining the life of the Muslims and criminalising those who breach it.

    If Macron had demanded from the Muslims not to interfere in ruling matters of the French republic, the issue would have been uncomplicated, but since he demanded from the Muslims to change their religion, they should not comply because the state of constraining duress does not apply to them. The most dangerous aspect of Macron’s undertaking is demanding the Muslims to acknowledge that their religion is not “political” and to recognise the “values of the French republic”, namely secularism, the religion of the French. The Muslims acknowledgement of Islam being devoid of politics is tantamount to denying conclusive texts of the noble Qur’an. Allah the Almighty says: “We have revealed to you the book, with the truth, so that you judge between people in accordance with what Allah has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the traitors.” [An-Nisa 105]; “His is the creation, and His is the command.” [Al-Aaraf-54]. Denying the conclusive text of the Qur’an is indisputably Kufr. Hence, the Muslims in France should realise that such an acknowledgement is apostasy from the religion of Allah the Almighty. They ought to hold on to their religion even if it led to their expulsion from France for Allah’s earth is wide enough. Allah the Almighty says: “Whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handle, which does not break. Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” [al-Baqarah-256]. They should not place the materialistic value ahead of the lasting spiritual value: “Say, If your parents, and your children, and your siblings, and your spouses, and your relatives, and the wealth you have acquired, and a business you worry about, and homes you love, are more dear to you than Allah, and His Messenger, and the struggle in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His judgment. And Allah does not guide the sinful people.” [al-Tawbah-24]

    The appropriate response to the demands of Macron who has failed to be consistent with his doctrine and the constitution of his country which champions freedom of creed, simply because of his hatred towards Islam, is for the Muslims to be coherent with their Aqeedah and to hold on to their religion just like their prophet Yusuf did in the face of less than what Macron has demanded of them: “He said, My Lord, prison is more desirable to me than what they call me to.” [Yusuf-33]. They should not betray their Lord just to please him. Ibnu Hibban reported in his Sahih book that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said “Whoever seeks Allah's pleasure by the people's wrath, Allah will suffice him from the people. And whoever seeks the people's pleasure by Allah's wrath, Allah will entrust him to the people.”

    Dear Muslims in France in particular and Western countries in general, be truthful to Allah so that He may be with you and support your religion and your prophet, and heal the hearts of your Ummah; and do not be like those that Allah the Almighty said about them: “Among the people are those who say, we believe in Allah and in the Last Day, but they are not believers.” [al-Baqarah-8]

    4 Rabi’ al-Thani 1442h
    19 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - Nagorno-Karabakh War Ends 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Nagorno-Karabakh War Ends

    Russian president Vladimir Putin announced the agreement on a “complete ceasefire” in Nagorno-Karabakh. The agreement stipulated that “a complete ceasefire has been concluded in Karabakh starting 10 November at midnight Moscow time. The armies of Azerbaijan and Armenia have pledged to remain in their positions and to exchange prisoners of war.” The agreement has also stipulated that “Armenia will return Kalbajar to Azerbaijan by 15 November and Lachin by 1 December, while keeping a 5-kilometre wide corridor connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, which will be controlled by Russian peacekeepers.

    Russia has succeeded in ending the Azerbaijan-Armenia war in a surprising manner after about two months of military battles in the occupied Azerbaijani Karabakh province, the roots of which date back to 1923 when the province was part of Azerbaijan’s territory and Joseph Stalin decided to separate it from Azerbaijan. In May 1992, separatist Armenian forces occupied the cities of Shusha and Lachin and in 1993, Armenian forces seized six other Azerbaijani districts around Nagorno-Karabakh, namely Kalbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Gubadli and Zangilan.

    Before coming to Armenia’s rescue, Russia had concocted this hotbed of tension between the two countries to ensure her intervention and to conduct the relations between the two sides in order to preserve her influence in the Caucasus region which is susceptible to ethnic and religious tensions whose brewing threatens the Russian Federation’s entity itself, not to mention the threat to Russia’s vital and strategic space in the entire region in favour of the US who has been endeavouring to seize its natural resources and dominate its supply routes, and besiege and contain Russia as per the old plan revealed by US policymaker and former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

    In addition to America’s covetous designs, Russia also dreads Turkey’s entry as an influential and active competitor in the Caucasus region with an American blessing whose aims are no secret in terms of heating up the friction between Russia and Turkey and weakening their relations, and triggering the demographic situation within the Iranian component, namely the Persians and Azerbaijanis, which led Iran to offer her mediation between the warring sides.

    However, because she has been subjected to a flurry of America’s political raids on her sphere of influence in Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova after losing Georgia and Ukraine to America, Russia is departing from a defensive strategy hinging on generating an equilibrium between Armenia and Azerbaijan and snatching the file of Karabakh from the Minsk Group, i.e. distancing the US and Europe from the issue, while maintaining the margin of differences with Turkey under control in order to underpin the stretch of antipathy and rifts between Turkey and the US and Europe. This Russian manoeuvring is more like a choice dictated by Russia and Turkey’s need for each other rather than a strategic political decision by either side because Russia has limited options amid the circumstances surrounding her. This led her to let the military operations take their course in a direction that would allow her to achieve her immediate aims, namely remaining in the region and overseeing the relations and not dominating them singlehandedly.

    Hence, by succeeding in ending the war in isolation of the Minsk Group, Russia has achieved what she had wanted according to her political approach which is constrained by a catalogue of equilibria, be it on the international plane pertinent to America or in neutralizing Turkey and limiting her manoeuvring and influence, in addition to scoring a point of rapprochement with Iran who is wary of the fallout of the crisis on the unity of her lands and societal cohesion. As for the Armenian domestic political plane, Russia wanted to discipline America’s man, Armenia’s prime minister Nikol Pashinyan, by subjecting him to the wrath of the masses together with the civil society forces linked to US billionaire philanthropist, George Soros.

    It is true that the main motive behind the Russian intervention to end the war was the rapid developments on the ground and Azerbaijan’s recapture of Shusha and her advance on various battlefronts, and Moscow’s fear of a total collapse of the Armenian forces which would have threatened the erosion of her backyard. However, Putin’s success in ending the war and brokering a ceasefire agreement is considered a Russian breakthrough and a message to all the stakeholders stipulating that she is main player in the crisis. Hence, the upshots of the agreement could be viewed as a success for Putin in terms of imposing a permanent Russian military presence in the region for five years, automatically renewable for further five-year periods, and shaking American influence by destroying the popularity of Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, who had reneged on his understandings with the Russians by allowing civil society institutions linked to the US to expand and work against her influence. This perhaps explains why Putin accepted Azerbaijan’s conditions which made Pashinyan look submissive, so that he may destroy his popularity, end his political future and make an example of him for those who follow him. Putin’s tactic started to bear its fruits as angry protests against Pashinyan broke out in the capital Yerevan with protesters gathering outside the government building and chanting anti-Pashinyan slogans; they broke windows and stormed the government building with some of them reaching the prime minister’s office and demanding his resignation.

    Vladimir Putin has also succeeded in achieving a longer-term objective by weakening Erdoğan’s chances of acquiring any trump cards or bargaining chips which could exert pressure on him, or even enter the arena of rivalry and competition; but he was also eager to maintain the relationship and the understandings he had reached with Erdoğan since he was the first Turkish president with whom he was able to reach a concord.

    What Putin has also succeeded in achieving is depriving Azerbaijan, who is backed by Turkey, of recovering full sovereignty over her lands, and dissuading her from defying the Russian master in his geopolitical area in the future, in addition to achieving a far-reaching aim by rescuing the Armenians from a totally humiliating defeat while convincing them of their need for the Russian umbrella. Putin has also downsized the victory of Azerbaijanis who had routed the Armenian occupiers and imposed their conditions from a position of strength with the backing of Turkey, lest their victory should remind the Russians and the Armenians of the grandeur of the Muslims, or restore in the memory of the Muslims their lost glory and their rights that are still confiscated by the Russian tsar such as the Crimean Peninsula.

    As for the Azerbaijani and Turkish side, the former succeeded with the help of the latter, despite the Russians’ attempt to thwart their victory, to establish a precedent in isolation of the international volition represented by the Minsk Group, namely laying the foundations of a reality in the Azerbaijani province that could no longer be sidestepped or ignored, whereas Turkey succeeded in imposing her presence in the region as a player whom Russia could no longer ignore, especially after Turkish weapons had proven their ability to change the balance of power in northern Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan. This proves that the Islamic Ummah, who is shackled by international institutions and resolutions, is capable of reversing the state of humiliation and dejection if she were to generate the willpower and the independent leadership which will trample on the resolutions of the colonialist organisations, and lead the Muslims to a lofty standing.

    27 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    13 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org
     

  • Political Observation - The Corrupt US System’s Mechanism & the Ascendency of the Deep State 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Corrupt US System’s Mechanism & the Ascendency of the Deep State

    The capitalist system is pragmatic and it conditions and shapes itself according to reality. However, its main legislative dilemma remains the concept of compromise that is deeply rooted in the American mentality and which manifests itself in most of what has been agreed upon in the US constitution, especially in the electoral mechanisms.

    What tends to deepen the American system’s dilemma is the fact that the republic and its systems have been built on racism and confiscating the political rights of some, and determines the right to vote through the criterion of freedom; in other words, preventing slaves from voting. This is because the US constitution legislated slavery in a devious manner; section 1 of the 13th amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Furthermore, the notion of the Electoral College suppresses and deceives the volition of the masses. It is an electoral mechanism designed to subjugate the small states to the principle of federation, especially in the presidential federal elections.

    The deep state is not confined in its denotational reservoir to the shadowy forces or the remnants of the annihilated regime that the media project as being the deep state to deceive the masses, divert their resentment and provoke their anger and rebellion towards the structure of the state, so that it may protect its essence; it is rather the intellectual, political and legislative system, the state institutions and the forces that influence them. In the US, the deep state is not merely the personalities, capitalists, companies, civil and military industrial groups, digital information technology and centres of strategic studies; it is rather all those institutions in addition to the constitutional institutions concocted by the founding fathers and the amendments introduced to their systems.

    Hence, the deep state in America is an integrated institution built on an intellectual and political system incorporated within the state organs, its governmental and non-governmental institutions and the forces influencing it such as the oil industry group, military industry group and the information technology industry, namely Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook, as well as the strategic research centres such as the Rand Corporation which includes an elite of intellectuals, politicians and retired military and civilian personalities, and enjoys generous financing from companies and capitalists. Their main aim is to protect the federal constitution and the interests of the capitalists, and bulwarking the republic which is deemed as their executive tool in achieving their interests.

    It is common knowledge that the world institutional structure we witness nowadays started its ghoulish comportment in 1933, when the US abandoned the gold standard, delinking the value of the dollar to gold. Then it turned into a savage beast when America realised her military might after dropping two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. She became confident that her military power would enable her to reshape the world according to her extremely vicious colonialist and capitalist vision. She succeeded in achieving this thanks to the current international system she established which includes financial, commercial, political and regional institutions which she has been harnessing to preserve the world order, the international situation she dominates singlehandedly.

    The most important official and effective components of the deep state in the US include the Department of State, CIA, FBI, Pentagon, National Security Agency and the Electoral College established by the founding fathers to serve the constitution, dominate the political scene, curb the power of the masses and dominate political decision-making and steer it in one single direction to oversee the choice of the electorates. This is corroborated by distinguished Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University, George C. Edwards III, who was quoted as saying: “They were tired, impatient, frustrated. They cobbled together this plan because they couldn’t agree on anything else.” Hence, the statement describes an important issue in the psychology of the American union and expressed the deeply-rooted societal division epitomised by the mistrust and suspicion dominating the union members who dread a central meddling in the affairs of the states or conferring executive powers on an official organ that would confiscate the authorities of the states via the federal institutions. This is the issue upon which Donald Trump built his first and second electoral campaigns and even exploited to absolve himself of responsibility for the unrest and protests against the killing of George Floyd and the spread of coronavirus, blaming the state governors of the Democratic party instead. Moreover, the notion of the electoral college was devised in the first instance as a compromise with the aim of sidestepping the volition of the masses and anticipating the risks that may crop up from direct elections. In other words, it was devised to curb the power of the people and the popular immunity of the president which may tempt him to rebel against the deep state, or may impede his removal should the deep state’s forces decide to get rid of him or side with his opponent. This explains the reason behind the prepondering force of the electoral college and its interactants in manipulating the choice of president and the presidential office.

    In fact, the reason why the capitalists have resorted to adopting the principle of compromise lies in the alternative being the fragmentation of the capitalist ideology itself; this is because the nature of life imposed by the capitalist ideology leads to the individualistic and egoistic tendencies, chieftainship and the dominance of capitalists and businesspersons over society resulting in their monopoly of power to control the masses and spread their hegemony; this clashes entirely with the notion of power and sovereignty to the people, and the “divine right” and its dictates and impediments. Hence, the principle of compromise is the magic carpet that fulfils the greed of the thieving capitalists; it is the sanctuary that allows them to secretly confiscate the will of the masses in choosing their rulers, to fraudulently enhance the credentials of their candidate and to avert any clash of interests and destruction of the ideology that achieves their interests forcibly. Hence, jurisprudents conjured up the notion of the Electoral College as a compromise after months of push and pull during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Some claimed the right of Congress to elect the president and some claimed the right of the people.

    The electoral college was therefore the sanctuary that stipulated establishing a temporary voting body equal to the number of US senators and representatives to elect the president of the US every four years. The body is constitutionally delegated to elect the US president in Washington the second week of January, i.e. two months after the elections. Hence, when an American citizen selects his presidential candidate on Election Day, he is actually choosing the members of this body who will cast votes on his behalf in the days and weeks after the election. This compromise reflected in the electoral college was reached after the smaller states had objected to the dominance of the greater states such as California over the US presidential elections due to their economic clout, the size of their population and the high number of slaves who were counted as residents, affecting the number of citizens in those states and their share of the electoral vote, even if they did not have the right to vote. This is why the fourth US president from 1809 to 1817, James Maddison, announced that because of the slaves, a census could not be a criterion to determine the share of the electoral college for each state. Consequently, due to the impact of considering the slaves as citizens, they reached another compromise that differentiated humanity between the white freeman and the slave; hence, they redefined the human attribute of the slaves and estimated its value at three fifths of a white man, i.e. they estimated the value of a slave as being an incomplete human beings, not to mention the denial of their political and civil rights, so as not to completely remove them from the census of the state, and in order to benefit from their numbers in increasing the share of the state in the electoral college since the number of votes in the electoral college for each state is linked to the number of residents.

    Therefore, the electoral college was endorsed and electoral rights were determined according to these factors; and this is why most political commentators attributed the flaws in the current political atmosphere and structure, reflected in the societal divisions and political struggle, to the fact that they had not been envisaged in the minds of US legislators and the founders of the electoral college. They also attributed it to the failure to constitutionalise a clear voting mechanism in respect of the electoral college. Maine and Nebraska are the only states to have introduced some modifications to the constitutions of their respective states whereby the votes are awarded to the candidate winning a majority.

    It is worth mentioning in this context that some of the representatives of the electoral college refused in seven previous elections to vote for the president-elect who had won the majority. The most famous celebrated occurrence was the refusal of North Carolina’s representative, Lloyd Bailey, to vote for Nixon in 1968. Such occurrences cropped up again in the 2016 elections, though some of these were isolated individual cases and had no telling impact, though they reflect the possibility of the representative in the electoral college renouncing his delegation and commitment to the electorates and voting for the president he wants himself, especially in the absence of a unified federal system to elect the members of the electoral college and to compel the representative of the electoral college to vote for the president according to the delegation of the electorates; and this corroborates the fact that capitalism and its liberal democratic system continue to deceive and defraud the alleged willpower of the masses.

    24 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    10 November 2020

      hizbuttahrir.org

  • Political Observation - Russia’s Position in World Politics and her Relationship with the US 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russia’s Position in World Politics and her Relationship with the US

    Apart from Britain, who is proceeding in the American orbit, Russia and the rest of the major powers do not dispute America’s leadership of the world, but rather seek strategic and security survival in their historical sphere of influence within a host of political approaches imposed and shaped by the might of the US and her international influence; this is because their membership of the Security Council and the regional organisations infiltrated by America, and the International institutions dominated by her, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, tend to frame their political movements instead of providing them with a margin of influence in world politics, especially as America controls the oil regions and her currency dominates the dollar-based International financial system, in addition to controlling most of the influential world media outlets and having the upper hand in terms of the means to execute International resolutions; all this has given America the exclusive power to break the law, rebel against the world order and bypass its institutions without fearing the sword of sanctions which she incidentally keeps wielding to muzzle the countries of the world including Russia and the major powers.

    Despite the power America enjoys, and despite Russia and the other major powers being integrated within the governance system instituted by America about 90 years ago, extending its continuance after the Second World War, then again after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the war on Islam, America does place Russia outside the category of independent states since the disparity in military and economic power between major powers does not necessarily mean either affiliation to the leading superpower or proceeding in its orbit; it only denotes a classification of the major powers in terms of military clout, influence and international decision-making. Consequently, the Russian undertakings that seem to identify with US policy actually fall under the understandings and mutual interests between the two countries. Examples of this would include Russia’s military strikes against the Syrian armed opposition which were designed to weaken them and restore a military equilibrium between the Syrian regime and the opposition, and force the fighting factions and opponents viewed as loose cannons to return to the American fold while inducing the masses to reject the militants with Islamic tendencies and coerce them into accepting America’s solutions and initiatives such as federalisation and the Deal of the Century. This was corroborated by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy, Andrew Exum, in a speech before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in which he justified the Russo-American understandings by claiming they were necessary to preserve the security of the "Israeli" entity.

    Moreover, some of the Russian political undertakings and stances were independent of the understandings with the US, such as her collusion with "Israel" to strike the Iranian forces and their affiliated militias in certain areas, and the strikes against the city of Idlib to displace its residents with the collusion of the criminal Bashar Assad; those Russian undertakings were harmonious with America’s policy in terrifying Turkey and Europe with the waves of migration and “terror”, especially as America’s strategy in Syria and Libya tends to absorb in its segment related to disconcerting Europe with the independent Russian moves whose outputs could be turned into inputs for future phases, such as exploiting the presence of the Wagner mercenaries and Russia’s objection to Turkey’s storming of Sirte and al-Jufra as a pretext to limit the Russian and Turkish field of activity in Libya, freeze the military process, kick France out of the game and exhort all foreign and domestic stakeholders to join the political process according to her vision of the solution as per the Berlin Conference and the outputs of the Geneva talks.

    On the other hand, Russia is a nationalist state and does not compete with America on the world stage; despite her conversion to capitalism, it remains however a distorted mafia-like specimen that lacks the civilisational Western democratic model that may be emulated. She also lacks the competitive edge in the technological sectors and civilian industries which Western states dominate. However, Russia endeavours to assert herself and her nationalistic sovereignty through her military might and developing her military industry, bullying all the religious, nationalist and ethnic components within her entity and her regional sphere, and flexing her oppressive military muscles in Syria and Libya. This is what forces her to conclude a host of understandings with the US beyond her geopolitical sphere and engrosses her in resisting American expansion into her lebensraum and geopolitical sphere, most of which is no longer under her total control, especially after Georgia and Ukraine exited the sphere of her influence following the Colour revolutions, the electoral events in Belarus, Kirgizstan and Moldova, and the war in Armenia. Meanwhile, Russia continues through her understandings with the US to gain some bargaining chips in certain regions and uses them to defend her regional depth.

    As for America, she continues to make rapid strides to besiege Russia within her geopolitical areas; and most observers are aware of the political changes that took place after most of the former Warsaw pact countries joined the EU and NATO, and of America’s attempts to chip away at Russia’s lebensraum within the Russian Commonwealth and to destabilise her union through the Chechen war that Putin eventually won.

    America also uses Russia as a scarecrow by allowing her to extend her presence to the Middle East and North African coastlines, which are considered an extremely sensitive area for Europe’s security and interests and for the Arab states. She also exploits Russia in the “Game Theory” and “The Strategy of Conflict” with the aim of deepening the ongoing crises and besieging Europe from the east, south and southeast with a belt of unrest and conflicts, and consequently perpetuating the state of uncertainty in Europe towards Russia in order to control and blackmail all of them and orchestrate the relationships between them according to her vision and interests. The president of the European Council Charles, Michel, expressed this sentiment by saying that “Europe is surrounded by a belt of instability.”

    America is banking on strengthening the performance of NATO and exploiting the European fears of the Russian threat to influence further the domestic and foreign policies of the European states. Hence, the US provokes Russia by violating the Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles Treaty and establishing missile defence systems in Poland and the Baltic states under the pretext of the Iranian threat and “terrorism” that she incidentally sponsors, in addition to snubbing the French offer to mediate with Russia on the issue of the missile agreement for the same reasons, namely perpetuating the uncertainty towards Russia and tinkering with European security.

    America continues her endeavour to isolate Russia internationally by raising Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and her meddling in the elections of neighbouring countries to impose sanctions on her, downsize her and curb her resistance to the American version of the Eurasia Project which Kissinger has often talked about and which America aims to implement in order to reach the energy sources in the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea countries, and eventually, in anticipation of the 21st century challenges, wean Europe off Russian gas or at least dwarf Russia’s gas exports thus depriving her of the revenues shoring up her military industries, and on the other hand, keep Europe dependent on her and the regions under her influence for her energy, within the strategy of dual containment of Russia and Europe.

    As for the Sino-Russian rapprochement, it does not provide Russia with sufficient power to influence world politics inasmuch as corroborate America’s strategy to encourage China to abandon her communist system that impedes the introduction of the liberal approach. The strategy focuses on the impact of the capitalist laws that automatically infiltrate the communist system via the gates of foreign alliance and the network of strategic imports. Hence, America is not worried about the Sino-Russian rapprochement turning into a rival political force, since the frail alliance that has brought them together could not withstand the conflict of interest pertinent to oil price rises which serve oil-producing Russia and harm oil-consuming China. Besides, Russia and China came together and used their veto several times in the Syrian file without achieving any impact on the International situation, apart from being viewed as opponents of the International consensus. This is due to America’s ability to contain the movements of the potential opponents and harness their presence on the international scene to deceive the masses and distance herself from the dirty work, or delegate them to act on her behalf either due to domestic considerations such as the presidential elections, or to avert the resentment of US public opinion against the president and his party, especially on issues pertinent to the Zionist entity or any other objective reason.

    The peripheral and media presence of countries such as France, Britain, Russia and China in the International scene is often a necessity dictated by US policy aimed to either implicate them or divert attention away from herself, or mobilise world public opinion on a specific issue and provide International cover for it, such as America’s nomination of France and Britain to handle the file of East Euphrates and the Buffer zone sought by Turkey on the borders with Syria; this manoeuvre was designed to remove the attribute of “terrorism” and lend legitimacy to the Syrian Democratic Forces and the PKK, whose presence Turkey categorically rejected.

    Moreover, when America allows the conventional major powers to be present on the political scene, this tends to either divert the masses’ resentment towards another enemy, such as the Muslims’ resentment towards Russia and Iran in the Syrian file, or generate a tussle between the conventional major powers and drive a wedge between them. Other examples of this manoeuvre are America’s decision to partially turn a blind eye to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and tempting Russia and Europe with the Arab markets and linking their interests to her areas of influence in order to blackmail and control them, oversee their relationships with those countries and to lend legitimacy to her tyrant agents such as Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. This explains why America allowed her agents to open their markets to her rivals, especially in the fields of arms and energy.

    Furthermore, it is possible to note the type of relationship between America and Russia through the statements of former US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter in 2016: “The United States does not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia… But make no mistake, we will defend our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords all of us.” Ashton Carter was more explicit when he described the US relationship with Russia by saying that the balanced approach of the US administration towards Russia was summed up in deterring Moscow while continuing to cooperate with her in the fields of common objectives and interests. Ashton Carter’s statements justify the US’s bilateral relations with Moscow and inhibit the Russo-European relationship; they are compatible with the reality of the relationship between them and consistent with America’s attempt to compel Europe to deal with Russia according to the American vision that categorises Russia as an enemy and justifies the continuance of NATO and the increase in its budget. Therefore, Putin endeavoured to alleviate Europe’s fears and attract Macron after he won the presidential elections. He said on Russia’s Victory Day, 9 May 2017: “This monstrous tragedy was made possible primarily due to connivance to the criminal ideology of racial superiority and due to the lack of unity among the world’s leading nations. This allowed the Nazis to arrogate the right to decide the destiny of other peoples, to unleash the cruellest, bloodiest war, to enslave nearly all European nations.” He added: “We will never forget that it was our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers who won back Europe’s freedom and the long-awaited peace.”

    We conclude from this that Russia remains an independent state and is genuinely targeted by the US. America has been pursuing Russia in her lebensraum and working relentlessly towards preventing her from meddling in the affairs of the neighbouring countries. America has been striving to make incursions into Russia’s regional depth in the south, i.e. the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia, in order to control the oil and gas resources and their supply routes, and subsequently reduce Russia’s revenues and hamper her spending on Putin’s policy that seeks to revamp the Russian armed forces to face the challenges of the 21st century.

    Finally, despite all the differences and the malice fraught with venom and selfishness in the manner America deals with her own kind from among the frenzied wolves and vicious beasts, and despite her investment in “terrorism and migration”, her fragmentation of the Muslims’ lands through the “Arab Spring” and her exploitation of those lands as a fuel in her initiatives that aim to enslave the Muslims and terrify Russia, Europe and China from being subjected to the same fate, they all treat the leaderless Muslims’ lands as a game reserve and they all gang up against them. They are all criminal, covetous and belligerent colonial powers.

    The Muslims should realise that America is not an inevitable fate, and that she only acquired worldwide dominion and economic superiority because Islam, the Muslims and their state was absent and because the collaborators were imposed on them to plunder their riches which should they recapture, they would rewrite history and rule the whole world.

    “If you help the cause of Allah, He will help you” [Mohammed-7]
     

    21 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    7 November 2020


     

  • Political Observation - France’s Status & Relationship with the United States 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - France’s Status & Her Relationship with the United States

    Each country has a domestic political stance and a foreign political stance. Monitoring a state’s domestic and foreign policy in light of the international situation helps us perceive whether the state is either affiliated to another power in its policy, or independent or a satellite state.

    One of the French strategic thinkers says: “More than anything, France wants to be sovereign; yet her sovereignty is insufficient to secure her national interest.” Based on France’s nature and the ideology upon which she is built, and by observing her domestic and foreign political stance, we deduce that she is an independent state but unable to control her destiny.

    Since being part of a whole renders a constituent dependent, France linked the colonised countries to her culture; and as it is known, cultural affiliation hampers the deracination of political influence. Therefore, France managed to maintain some presence in West Africa, a pretext to intervene in the continent, and a presence on the international scene, especially as the state should have something to offer to the world if it were to maintain a position on the world stage. This is what France, America and Britain have and Russia does not, namely the liberal democratic value-based system. It is worth observing in this context that investing in what certain opponents or foes from among independent states believe in, is one of America’s styles, just like her investment in Russia and France’s need to have an international presence motivated by ideology or nationalism to act as guarantees for self-assertion and to avert domestic erosion and collapse. Likewise, America’s investment in Erdoğan’s need to enhance his popular standing, and her exploiting of such an enterprise in her strategies and plans which often tend to absorb the movements of the others irrespective of their orientation, with the aim of containing and directing them, such as the movements of Turkey and Russia in Syria and Libya. This could confuse the observers’ perception of the relationships between America and those states and lead to analysing the events in a manner contrary to their reality. Another example of this approach is America’s investment in the Muslim youths’ yearning for Jihad on the principle of “the end justifies the means” to achieve her objectives based on the Dulles Strategy, and her support for the national liberation movements against British and French colonialism last century, as per the testimony of mid-level CIA officer Oliver Iselin on US intelligence agencies’ role in the activities of national liberation movements in Africa.

    By exploring the reality of African countries like Mali and Niger, where America established military bases near the uranium-producing mines, from which France obtains 90% of their output for her nuclear power plants, and by observing France’s desperate efforts to thwart the Libyan method in seeking “liberation”, lest it should contaminate west African countries, in addition to tracking US policy in disseminating “terrorism” in that region via Algeria, a narrative corroborated by Jeremy Keenan in his book titled “The Dark Sahara” in which he accused the US and Algeria of conspiring to fabricate evidence and exaggerate the threat of al-Qaeda’s terror in North Africa, described the “worldwide war on terror” as a hoax, and concluded that the attacks executed by such groups served America’s endeavour to spread her political influence over the region to dominate its economic resources, it transpires from all this that France still has several agents in various parts of Africa who have been serving her political and economic interests for decades.

    However, the US strategy for the African continent, especially during the tenure of Donald Trump, has constrained those agents; thus, some of them proceeded behind her or behind their interests with China, within the context of an American strategy aimed at generating a rivalry between China and France, and even between France and Turkey, and China and Turkey, who has recently turned up in the African continent, as China’s incursion and generation of economic interests through infrastructure projects and direct lending to African states is no longer a secret. Moreover, America has sought to constrain the behaviour of some of those rulers and political milieux constituting the legacy of the old colonialism of the African continent through a host of military, security and economic agreements; consequently, they are no longer in a position to project the French or the British viewpoint and achieve their interests in isolation of American supervision. The Anglo-Saxon capitalists’ control of French major companies, especially oil companies, and what this entails in terms of governance systems instituted by investment funds, has paralysed France’s ability to harness her companies for political aims, as was the case with Elf, which used to act as the French foreign ministry to the point where it would supply armies with weapons and appoint and oust presidents. 

    Hence, French influence nowadays is present through a number of individuals occupying positions of power but they are besieged by American companies and agents, and AFRICOM military bases in the Sahel region and Central Africa. France managed to recapture Côte d'Ivoire from the American agent Alassane Ouattara and to snatch the Congolese president Joseph Kabila from the grip of America; but America killed him because he had turned on her and replaced him with his son, just as she usually changes her shoes in the Gulf.

    However, the influence of France and Britain in their former colonies necessitates from the rulers affiliated to them being decision makers in their respective countries, but this does not mean being able to openly act insubordinately towards America, because what makes the agent able to operate is the ability of the major power to which he is affiliated to protect him; France and Britain could not protect their agents if they were to openly work towards thwarting America’s influence. Not only can America influence the affiliated states but also the states sponsoring them, not to mention the nature of the relationship between the major powers which is no longer based on struggle.

    Despite America’s numerous attempts to infiltrate France’s political system and its deep state, she however could not achieve the same success she had with Britain, where she managed to dwarf the British political milieu through a host of direct actions. She succeeded in luring Britain’s leaders, such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, and dominating the British political parties, trade unions and student unions, in addition to influencing the British economy. America also managed to link Britain’s interests to her policies and lure her into partaking in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the war on “terror”, and in persuading her to exert pressure on France in respect of NATO and to exit the European Union.

    As for America’s incursions into the French system and her attempts to destabilise it and dismantle the mechanisms of French independence, these are numerous and they include the Franco-American squabble that cropped up by the end of the Second World War, as America pursued the policy of liquidating the old colonies and draining the classical colonial powers’ sources of influence and chasing them away from their colonies. Britain and France were subjected to an onslaught by proxy via Abdul Nasser and Gaddafi in the Sahel and North Africa, in addition to the trade unions and students’ movements which toppled the government of France’s military icon, Charles De Gaulle, who had objected to Britain’s EEC membership as he knew that it would lead to Americanising the European project. America then set about curtailing the French investment enterprises in her former colonial sphere in west Africa through a host of protocols such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) of 2000, and a number of initiatives such as the African American Strategic Partnership, in addition to sponsoring the African Union, the World Bank and the American NGO’s involved in executing the common objective pertinent to “developing and integrating the Dark Continent”, which include economic, commercial, investment and security development, and which is usually undertaken through high-level US sponsorship, a narrative corroborated by the text of the “US-Africa Strategy ”.

    Observers are aware that America owns 12.4% of UK investment holdings, and that she sought, through her oil companies, to acquire the French Total Group, which includes the major French oil companies such as Total and Elf Aquitaine, by buying 34.5% of its shares; and America sought to become the majority shareholder in the French tyres company Michelin, which America subsequently exploited to exert pressure on the French government by dismissing a large number of its workforce in the nineties, causing the French government a major industrial crisis.

    America has also infiltrated the French media with an army of 50 Jewish financiers, most of whom are linked to the US, such as Bernard Henri Lévy, who virtually work as agents within the French system, in addition to French news channels BFMTV and CNEWS, which have US-sponsored far-right tendencies. As for the status quo in France, it indicates the presence of advanced American actions aimed at dismantling the deep state, such as the onslaught on the structure of the education system and the attempt to monopolise the main governmental jobs through the graduates of one single college, namely “Ecole Nationale D’Administration” founded by De Gaulle after the Second World War and from which Chirac, Hollande and Macron graduated.

    As for Macron’s attempts to establish some influence in the Mediterranean region in Libya, Cyprus or Lebanon, they are not in isolation from American supervision, and some Lebanese leaders, such as former minister Wiam Wahab, expressed this reality by stating that “America has sent Macron with her agenda with which we are familiar”.

    Meanwhile, recent events in Libya revealed that America’s decision to give France the green light to back her agent Khalifah Haftar was a political trap aimed at projecting France’s impotence. As for Macron’s desperate attempts to persuade EU member states to establish a European military force, his attempts to restore France’s relations with Russia or his intervention to settle the issue of intermediate-range and short-range missiles, they all ended in failure. America is working directly or through her agents to sow despair in France, downsize her and confine her to her national borders.

    It is possible to construe this reality from Macron’s reactions and his attempts to cover up his failure and compensate for it through his attack on Islam and his precautionary measures by raising fears in French nationals for their identity and constitution.

    France is a nuclear power and different from Britain. She had maintained the independence of the French nuclear deterrent and her military industries. She never integrated herself fully into NATO despite being a member state; she withdrew from NATO’s operational aspect since the days of De Gaulle and she does not take part in military cooperation projects and joint manufacturing like Britain. This French attitude infuriated America and led her to call for an increase in NATO’s military spending with France’s attempts to evade it. It is worth recalling in this context France’s position vis-à-vis the 9/11 attacks and her assiduous endeavours to ratify the agreements aimed at deepening European integration, and her deep resentment towards the Anglo-Saxon financial system in the wake of the financial markets’ collapse in 2008.

    France’s main concern is resisting anything that impinges on her doctrine, her perception of her national interests or threatening her economic resources in Africa. Her main problem is that her national interests cannot be achieved in isolation from the US, and this compels her to condition herself with this reality. She is therefore torn between succumbing to the US and conditioning herself with her size and reality; and although she responds swiftly and emotionally in times of crisis, she however quickly returns back to square one and retracts from every step that angers America.

    America for her part is well aware of France’s psychology and exploit her to her advantage; she tends to help her in order to deepen her sense of weakness, impotence and need for America. This is why their relationship is tinged with mistrust, especially from France’s part, as she has suffered a great deal from being exploited by others in achieving their interests, a narrative corroborated by the famous British slogan: “We shall fight until the last French soldier.”

    19 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1442h
    5 November 2020

    hizbuttahrir.org  

  • Political Observation - The Nice Attack in France 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Nice Attack in France

    A Muslim youth carried out a knife attack this morning Thursday 29 October on a few French citizens near the Basilica of Notre-Dame in the French city of Nice. French media outlets said the church was the target of the attack which was followed by widespread condemnation by the state, regional organisations and religious institutions. Three persons were killed, and several were injured in the attack.

    During his visit to Basilica of Notre-Dame in Nice, the Kafir Macron announced in a crusader-like tone filled with hatred and resentment that “the entire nation stands behind our Catholic citizens in the face of the Islamist attack.” With a persistent exaggeration that reflected his crisis, and in order to cover up his failure Macron confirmed the deployment of 7000 soldiers to protect the security of the country, in addition to increasing the alert level in response to the threats to protect places of worship and schools. “If we have suffered an attack, it is because of our values related to freedom and our determination to not give in to terror”, Macron said. This latest attack came amid a clamorous crisis with the Islamic world caused by the French president’s campaign on Islam and its prophet ﷺ under the pretext of “free speech”. 

  • Sudan Jumps on the Bandwagon of Traitorous Normalisation and Alliance 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
    Political Observation - Sudan Jumps on the Bandwagon of Traitorous Normalisation and Alliance
     
    "Israeli" radio announced on 22 October that an "Israeli" delegation had visited Khartoum on Wednesday 21 October to put the final touches on the agreement to normalise official ties between Sudan and "Israel". Two days later, the White House announced that president Donald Trump had signed a decree “rescinding Sudan's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism” and that Khartoum and Tel Aviv had agreed - through US mediation – to normalise their relations. The timing seems to have benefited all the stakeholders.
  • Political Observation - Trump’s Electoral Stunt 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Trump’s Electoral Stunt

    In a coordinated filming and a Hollywood-like mise-en-scène, Donald Trump returned to the White House from Walter Reed military hospital by helicopter, looking triumphant and claiming that contracting Covid-19 was a “blessing from God”. He then stood on the balcony facing the south lawn of the White House like a film star, removed his mask, as if he wanted to send a message to his electoral powerbase claiming that he had won, and told the America people “don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.”

  • Political Observation - New Motives Behind the Nagorno-Karabakh War 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - New Motives Behind the Nagorno-Karabakh War

    A military conflict has yet again erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, the motives of the conflict this time are different. Following the conflict of 12 July in Tovuz, north Azerbaijan, the aim of which was to blackmail Turkey and dissuade her from storming the Libyan cities of Sirte and al-Jufra, in addition to undermining the oil and gas supply routes stretching from Azerbaijan to Turkey, the 27 September conflict was triggered to achieve new aims designed to serve America’s interests more than Russia’s.

    It seems that Armenia, whose prime minister Nikol Pashinyan tends to balance between the Russian and Western interests – since he acceded to power with Russia’s support – has taken America’s advice and ignited the Nagorno-Karabakh front to achieve a host of aims, including engrossing Turkey in a new military conflict to exhaust her militarily and economically. 


    The Turkish army is engaged on several fronts susceptible to be militarily set alight, especially in Syria, Iraq and Libya, and in the Eastern Mediterranean against Greece and Cyprus which are implicitly backed by Europe and America. The aims of the new conflict also include the attempt to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey in southern Caucasus, and consequently ruining the joint understanding they have concluded in several military, security and economic files. This was reflected in the lax American standpoint towards the conflict from the onset and expressed by Donald Trump who said “We'll see if we can stop it.”

    As for Armenia’s prime minister, he stated on 30 September that “peace negotiations with Azerbaijan under Russian mediation would be inappropriate”, in reference to Russia’s slackness in helping him. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has succeeded with Turkey’s backing in recovering some villages in Karabakh and inflicting heavy losses on the Armenian army.

    Since Turkey had learned the ropes of the American stratagem and the importance of the Azerbaijani card in pressurising Russia, she has been strengthening Azerbaijan’s capabilities diplomatically and militarily since the clashes erupted last July. She organised several major military drills, trained Azerbaijani soldiers and dispatched a sizable number of officers, soldiers and weapons. Buoyed by this preparedness, Erdoğan declared as the recent battles erupted: “Azerbaijan who said it was time to settle the score should take matters into her own hands.” He added: “The region will regain peace and calm as soon as Armenia withdraws from occupied Azerbaijani lands.” He, however, did not burn all his bridges when he suggested that the battlefront could be reignited afresh in the future and that “the way for a lasting ceasefire in this region depends on Armenians’ withdrawal from every span of Azerbaijani territory.” And in line with the Turkish stance, Azerbaijani president announced his rejection of any talks with Armenia on Karabakh before total withdrawal from the occupied lands. “We have liberated some strategic points from occupation and no one can chase us away from these lands after today,” he added. On the other hand, and following the losses of the Armenian army, Armenia’s president announced his readiness to accept Russian mediation in negotiations with Azerbaijan. This U-turn came after the states sponsoring him had realised the extent of the Turkish-Azerbaijani determination to fight. 

    It seems the Turkish stance is based on the understanding that Russia would not risk a direct military intervention to support Armenia lest she should end up in a direct and open confrontation with Turkey who controls the Bosporus Strait, and lest she should lose Azerbaijan and turn it into an enemy in her southern flank like Georgia and Ukraine.

    As for the European stance, it has called for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the Minsk Group and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and if we excluded France, Europe seems to be oblivious to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict on her borders and she is focusing her efforts on besieging Turkey in Eastern Mediterranean. As for France, she is likely to be the inciter of the recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and America is set to benefit from the Franco-Turkish tussle which has undermined some European states’ confidence in France’s ability to secure their interests. This is why France failed in securing a European consensus on imposing sanctions on Turkey, in addition to the personal reasons of French president Emmanuel Macron who is attempting to muster the support of the anti-Turkish French nationalist right-wing after he was subjected to a wave of criticism in France due to his failure in tackling the files of Turkey, Eastern Mediterranean and Mali.

    Turkey’s persistence in offering Azerbaijan a strong military and diplomatic backing is in the first instance a defence of Turkey’s eastern front and her economic and military interests in Azerbaijan, now that she is facing potential conflicts in the south, namely Syria and Iraq, in the west (Greece) and Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus and Libya).

    Turkey’s backing of Azerbaijan was corroborated by Erdoğan on 1 October who said in a televised speech that “a ceasefire in this region depends on an Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani lands…. the statements of the sides keeping silent over the occupation and criminalising those who defend their homeland and those who support them in this endeavour is of no consequence to us; we will continue to support our Azerbaijani brethren with all our capabilities based on the principle of on one single people in two countries.”

    Faced with such dangerous statements and soon after Erdoğan’s speech, America, Russia and France issued a joint communiqué in which they called for an immediate ceasefire between the Azerbaijani and Armenian forces and urged both countries to return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the Minsk Group.

    The Russian foreign ministry sensed it was targeted more than other major powers in this conflict on her doorstep. Hence, she addressed Erdoğan frankly and directly by stating that “the belligerent statements of a third party concerning Karabakh are unconstructive, irresponsible and lead to destabilising the situation in the Caucasus.”

    Hence, despite Armenia’s insinuations suggesting her readiness to accept a ceasefire and return to the negotiations without any preconditions, the Azerbaijani side that has achieved military superiority thanks to Turkey’s backing will continue to work towards recovering the Nagorno-Karabakh region and securing a negotiating position that will enable it to either force the Armenian forces to return to their borders or embed its right to using military force to recover its lands any time it deems fit; and consequently, Azerbaijan will have succeeded in breaking the restrictions of the Minsk Group controlling the mechanisms of tackling the issue of her usurped province.

    Finally, it is imperative to realise that Turkey and other Muslim countries are capable of generating the means to rid themselves of the major powers’ dominion over their political decision-making; that they are capable of harnessing the power of the Muslims’ and the faculties of their lands to the advantage of the Ummah; that they are capable of destroying the terrifying spectre the West has concocted to subjugate the Ummah and lead her to proceed behind the beasts towards her bleak future; and that they are capable of liberating the lands of the Muslims once they have taken the necessary steps for the confrontation.

    17 Safar 1442h
    4 October 2020


     

  • Political Observation - The Popular Dynamism in Egypt 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Popular Dynamism in Egypt

    Egypt has been the scene of several demonstrations and protests calling for the departure of al-Sisi since 20 September. It seems the immediate motive behind this popular dynamism is the government’s decision to demolish people’s homes under the pretext of violating building regulations or being built on either agricultural or state-owned lands. As for the main motives that have piled up since the tyrant and his clique came to power, they include offending the masses’ religion by arresting and severely torturing several preachers, and impertinently demolishing dozens of mosques in recent days, in addition to the wretched economic situation which has become entirely dependent on foreign assistance and support, and the astronomical debt that has mortgaged the faculties and future of Egypt to foreign investment funds and multinationals which have monopolised the gas riches and deprived the people of Egypt of them. Moreover, the masses in Egypt have been enslaved by the brutal secularist capitalist junta, and the military and security forces who have confiscated the basic rights of the people of Egypt, and violated their lives, properties, and honour.

  • Political Observation - Strings of the Political Game in Libya 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - The Strings of the Political Game in Libya Following Bouznika Understanding & Geneva Dialogue
     
    As Turkey decided to firmly join the fray in western Libya where Khalifah Haftar was trounced, the impact of the states sponsoring him, especially France, faded and Russia’s influence shrunk to the level permitted by the US for its designs for the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Europe and NATO.
     
    The Russians and the French discovered they had backed the wrong horse after America made them believe she was supporting Haftar through Egypt and the Emirates, and supporting Turkey to storm Sirte and al-Jufra, whereas in fact she was planning to pull the rug from under the feet of all the stakeholders, including Turkey, by embedding the demarcation lines in Sirte and al-Jufra, turning Sirte into a demilitarised zone through the ceasefire announced by al-Sarraj and Aguila Saleh and kick-starting the negotiations in Morocco and Geneva to galvanise the political process which is based on the upshots of Bouznika and the Berlin Conference, and which intersects with the Cairo Declaration that stipulates expelling “foreign mercenaries” from Libyan lands, dismantling and disarming the militias, in addition to electing a presidential council consisting of three members representing the provinces of Tripoli, Barqah and Fezzan. The political process intersects also with the start of a new transitional period of 18 to 24 months, which necessitates from both sides neutralising the city of Sirte so as to allow the Government of National Accord (GNA) to work freely and without any pressure, and without the need for the protection of the Fajr Libya Battalion, and pawning it to a UN peacekeeping force controlled by the US. This explains why the competencies of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) have been extended, why a host of executive tasks have been added to its mission, and why it has acquisitioned the lion’s share in the negotiating committees in Geneva based on the recent UN Security Council resolution stipulating restructuring UNSMIL, increasing its activity and extending it from 40 to 80 members, whereby UNSMIL would select 54 of its members and the other 26 members would be from parliament and the High Council of State. Restructuring UNSMIL would turn it into a tool steered by the US to determine the progress of the situation in Libya, in isolation of the influence of the covetous states, and without necessarily ruling out the presence of bilateral understandings between America, Turkey and Russia at the expense of the European states and their African and Mediterranean interests, in addition to the dimensions pertinent to Chinese interests in Africa, and triggering competition between China and Turkey, Europe and Russia. US Senator Lindsey Graham alluded to this by backing the notion of allowing Turkey to compete with China in west Africa.
     
    Hence, through the new Libyan political process, America could achieve what Haftar failed to achieve through armed conflict, namely restructuring the Libyan regime and sending the “revolutionaries” back to their homes to employ them in protecting the regime formed by the deep state and the remnants of Gaddafi, now that she has succeeded in thwarting the Paris, Palermo and Moscow conferences, turned Libya into a scene of rivalry between Turkey, France, Russia, Germany and Italy, and made Libya a source of anxiety for the European Union because of illegal migration, “terrorism” and Russia and Turkey’s presence in the basin facing southern Europe which constitutes Europe’s Achilles heel and deepens her need for America and NATO.
     
    It is worth mentioning that each side in the Libyan file attempts to exploit the other stakeholders for its own advantage. America is exploiting the Russian presence to corroborate the continuance of NATO and contain the security and defence European policy. She is also exploiting the Turkish presence to contain the forces of western Libya and its armed groups to integrate them into the army and retrain them in an institutionalised manner under the political authority. The GNA defence minister, Salah al Namroush, announced few days ago that his ministry, with the help of the Turkish side, “has begun to implement programs to build and restructure the Libyan Armed Forces, develop the army, air and naval defence sectors, along with the anti-terrorist forces and the special forces.”
     
    As for Haftar’s objections to the new understandings, it is part of the plot. In the past, he rejected Egyptian mediation and refused to meet al-Sarraj in Cairo in 2017 and to sign the ceasefire agreement in Moscow. He also turned his back on the European states congregated in Berlin. Although all this reflects the narcissism of Haftar’s personality and his recent exasperation as his role has been marginalised and dwarfed and as he has sensed the intention to end it altogether, especially as the declared understandings failed to mention his future as was the case with the previous talks that used to take his role into account. Haftar’s rejection of the ceasefire declared between al-Sarraj and Aguila Saleh comes within the context of exchanging the roles and exerting pressure on the forces of western Libya to coerce them into proceeding with the political solution on the grounds of the Berlin Conference and the Geneva talks with the collusion of al-Sarraj. This was corroborated with Haftar’s acquiescence three days ahead of the political agreement to the dictates of the US embassy in Tripoli pertinent to reopening the seaports and oilfields and resuming oil exports which have been suspended for over seven months. The agreement was concluded with Ahmed Omar Maiteeq, vice chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya, and announced by the spokesperson of Haftar’s militias, Ahmed al-Mismari, on Friday 18 September 2020.
     
    It is worth mentioning in this context that Haftar’s decision to suspend oil exports since the outbreak of the Coronavirus and the collapse of oil prices was not simply to exert pressure of his opponents in Tripoli but also in service of the US who was seeking to halt the freefall of oil prices and prevent the crisis from worsening. As for resuming Libyan oil exports before winter when demand is expected to increase, especially if coronavirus recedes, it is designed to curb a sharp rise in oil prices, and Russia is attempting to thwart this scenario as she continues to benefit from the suspension of Libyan oil exports; this is why Russia is hellbent in remaining in the city of Sirte which represents the gateway to the oil seaports; but Haftar’s collaboration with America is not helping Russia achieve her aims. As for al-Sarraj’s decision to resign by the end of October, provided a presidential council is formed and the work of the 5+5 committee is resumed, it will be a pretext to alienate Haftar whom Turkey insists is removed in order to deepen the Libyans’ acceptance of her presence and consolidate her role in Libya. Moreover, alienating Haftar and all the spent and publicly rejected figures is designed to reduce tension and resentment and remove the obstacles before an appropriate team of cadres for the forthcoming phase.
     
    This is the situation of Libya where the masses are not in control of their destiny and their resources. This is in fact the situation in most of the Islamic lands. Hence, will the people of Libya take heed of the reality in which they are living and of the plots of the Kuffar against them, and will they work towards burying the hatchet, standing united in the face of America and the Kafir Western states’ covetousness ,and sacrificing to uproot America’s influence instead of fighting each other, fragmenting the country and plundering its resources on behalf of the Kufr states and their surrogates?
     
    6 Safar 1442h
    23 September 2020
    www.hizbuttahrir.org
  • Political Observation - The Region’s Unfolding Events: An Alliance against Islam & Muslims, Not Normalisation 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Region’s Unfolding Events: An Alliance against Islam & Muslims, Not Normalisation

    If we were to review the statements of the Arab and Jewish leaders and the articles of the agreement between the Emirates and "Israel", we would deduce that the agreement is targeting the Islamic Ummah and not just Palestine. This was expressed by the statement of Netanyahu in which he said “what has happened is a major turning point in the history of Israel and the Middle East.” The agreement aims at guaranteeing the security of "Israel", entrenching it in the region and supporting it economically; and this was also confirmed by Netanyahu who said “The peace agreements with Abu Dhabi and al-Manama will bring to the Israeli economy billions of dollars in investment and economic cooperation.” 

  • Political Observation - The Role of Iraqi Premier Mustapha al-Kadhimi in Serving America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Role of Iraqi Premier Mustapha al-Kadhimi in Serving America

    The US has been marketing her agent, Iraqi prime minister Mustapha al-Kadhimi, whom she has brought from outside the political parties in an attempt to secure popular support for him through “fighting corruption” which is deemed as the most prominent file in the masses’ concerns to the point where the entire population has turned into the party with which he is fighting his political opponents.

    Two days into his campaign against corruption, and despite the threatening messages he has received in recent days in the shape of bomb blasts to deter him from executing his agenda, al-Kadhimi launched an extensive operation of arrests against tens of former and current officials and executives, including some prominent figures, in a move described as unprecedented since the fall of Baghdad. According to arabi21.com, Iraqi media outlets reported the arrest of the deputy governor of Dhi Qar, the head of Baghdad Investment Committee, the Director of the Agricultural Bank, his son and ten employees, in addition to the apprehending of two national banks executives and the director of Qi Card. The campaign also included issuing judicial decrees imposing a travel ban on former Baghdad mayor, Thikra Mohammed Jabir, and the director of contracts at the ministry of planning,g Azhar al-Rubaie. An arrest warrant was also issued for the director of Baghdad Water, Ammar Mousa, on corruption charges. Al-Kadhimi has also clashed with the fiercest and most loyal faction to Iran from among the Popular Mobilisation Forces, namely Iraqi Hezbollah, several of whose cadres have recently been arrested under his direct orders. 

  • Political Observation - US Mediation in Demarcating Lebanon-"Israel" Borders 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - US Mediation in Demarcating Lebanon-"Israel" Borders

    In a special briefing via telephone posted on the US Department of State’s website on 8 September 2020, Assistant Secretary of Near Eastern Affair, David Schenker said: “I certainly haven’t said that we have reached an agreement on the maritime and land border framework yet. I think we’re getting closer... but I’m not going to get into the details on what’s holding it up, but I hope to be able to come over to Lebanon and then sign this agreement in the coming weeks.”

    In fact, David Schenker’s briefing represents the cornerstone of America’s endeavour to restructure the Lebanese regime and downsize the weightiness of Hezbollah in the government amidst the tremendous popular and foreign pressures exerted on Hezbollah and its partners following the Beirut port explosion. The border dispute with the usurping entity has been Hezbollah’s pretext for keeping its weapons, and ending this struggle would strip it of the justifications that have been giving it the ability to control sensitive components of the Lebanese state and society which has been preventing Lebanon from joining the camp of normalisation and alliance with "Israel".

    If America were to succeed in settling the “struggle”, which is likely even though it may take some time, she would not only pave the way for opening channels of communication between Lebanon and the criminal entity and removing the obstacles in the face of normalisation, but also put the issue of the northern front that has been exasperating "Israel" to bed, sparing it from being perpetually targeted, especially as Hezbollah’s project does not exceed recovering the occupied Lebanese lands and is set to end once the “struggle” is settled. 

  • Political Observation - Russian Manoeuvres in Eastern Mediterranean 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russian Manoeuvres in Eastern Mediterranean

    On September 2, 2020, Turkey announced two new naval warnings in the eastern Mediterranean for Russia to conduct live ammunition exercises in the gas exploration area, and the first date was set between September 8-22 with the second between September 17-25 2020.

    What is remarkable in these Russian drills is that they will take place near the areas in which France and Greece carried out joint military manoeuvres. The question is, will the eastern Mediterranean energy crisis lead to fresh political and military alliances?

    In order to answer this question, it would be imperative to perceive that Turkey’s relationship with Russia is not based on an alliance as is the case between Turkey and America. The principle upon which Turkey has been proceeding, since she ended her collaboration with America and moved away from her total affiliation to the Western order, is preserving her strategic interests.

    In order to achieve these supreme interests, she has the option of dealing with major power on a case by case basis. In Libya, she cooperates with America against Russia and France, irrespective of America’s long-term policies for Libya and North Africa, and in Syria, she cooperates with Russia regardless of the Russo-American understandings. Hence, Turkey carves her way in international politics on the basis of her interests rather than affiliation, and she is prepared to raise the stakes if she were to face a direct threat, especially in respect of her national security; but apart from this, she would either bow down, or manoeuvre, or conclude an understanding. 

  • Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle

    International struggle occurs between the willpower of the influential powers in international relations. It aims at subjugating or abolishing the opponent for doctrinal, expedient or nationalistic reasons. Political thinkers say the struggle undergoes several stages which they describe as the struggle’s life cycle. It begins with escalation due to a lack of trust and a hatred nurtured by doctrinal, nationalistic and expedient tendencies. The struggle then begins to shrink with the emergence of goodwill, trust and understanding and then moves towards the stage of stability and ends up fading and disappearing altogether. The struggle may be replaced with cooperation and partnership. This means that a situation of struggle is never perpetual unless the motive behind it is doctrinal and not subject to concession or waning with time.

  • Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم 

                                                                                                     Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah

    The US has set about fostering the enormous shock she instigated from the gates of the Emirates to liquidate the issue of Palestine after she had harnessed the regimes and the masses of the Middle East to absorb the final outputs that she engineered through the Arab Spring. America has led the children of the Ummah towards total paralysis to the point where they became unable to stand up to the collaborating regimes after they had been subjected to all kinds of oppression, victimisation, intimidation, and humiliation. She generated the appropriate atmosphere for the regimes to break the resolve of their masses, violate their sanctities and perpetrate the most repugnant of treasons, namely normalisation and alliance with their arch enemy, the Jews. In the past few days, US president Donald Trump has been talking about the agreement between the Emirates and the Jewish entity to normalise their ties, and mentioned that leaders of other states had contacted him enquiring why they had been excluded from the agreement. He also indicated that monarchs, presidents, governments and dictators used to call him to dissuade him from moving the US embassy in "Israel" to al-Quds, but he ignored them and stressed that the ceremony of opening the embassy in al-Quds quelled all the claims of possible serious fallouts as a result of his decision.

    US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived yesterday in the region to begin his Middle East tour to corroborate what they refer to as the “Arab-Israeli peace efforts”. He will soon be seconded by Donald Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is expected to visit several countries. Pompeo arrived today in Khartoum on a direct flight from the Jewish entity, and he intends to visit several Gulf States, starting with Bahrain and the Emirates, whereas Kushner and his team are expected to visit "Israel", Bahrain, Oman, Saudi and Morocco as a part of their tour expected to start at the weekend.

    Although the visits of Pompeo and Kushner, and before them the US president’s sponsorship of the "Israeli"- Emirati agreement, come within the context of shoring up Trump’s forthcoming electoral campaign, in addition to supporting Netanyahu in his domestic tussle, what is more dangerous in these events is that they help execute the so-called Deal of the Century which aims at liquidating the Palestinian issue, coercing the Ummah into capitulating completely to America, and establishing peace with the Jewish occupiers. These events epitomise even the war on Islam and the Muslims, as per the statement of the Emirati ambassador to Washington reported by "Israeli" newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in which he said that “Islamic expansion encourages extremism and undermines stability”, and he described the Muslims’ Jihad and history as the “ugly legacy of animosity and conflicts”. 

  • Political Observation - UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Verdict on the Case of Rafiq al-Hariri 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Verdict on the Case of Rafiq al-Hariri

    On Tuesday 18 August 2020, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon found one single defendant guilty of assassinating former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri in February 2005. Lebanese president Michel Aoun called for “accepting the verdict of the court.” Soon after, Saad al-Hariri announced his acceptance of the court’s verdict and called for the pursuit of the perpetrators.

    As Judge David Re read out the summary of the verdict, he cited that while Syria and Hezbollah "may have had motives to eliminate" Hariri and some of his political allies, there was "no evidence that the Hezbollah leadership had any involvement in Hariri's murder and there is no direct evidence of Syrian involvement". Judge Micheline Braidy, for her part, said the assassination of al-Hariri was executed for political motives and that no evidence was found to implicate Syria and Hezbollah’s leaders in this issue.

    Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrullah, said last Friday that his party would “deal with the verdict of the court as if it did not exist.”
    In fact, every single international institution, including the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, is controlled and not independent. Each one of them is a tool in the hands of the US with which she blackmails the parties she wants to subjugate to her agendas, exactly as she did with former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir who relinquished southern Sudan after he had been threatened with prosecution by the International Criminal Court. 

  • Political Observation - Escalating Tension in Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey & Greece  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Escalating Tension in Eastern Mediterranean between Turkey & Greece 

    Tension and escalation in the eastern Mediterranean have intensified in recent days between Turkey and Greece which virtually came close to brinkmanship. Observers of the events are well aware that America has been orchestrating the crisis since she gave the government of al-Sarraj the green light on the demarcation of a maritime border in the Mediterranean with Turkey. 

    This ignited a war of words between Turkey, Greece and France and placed Turkey in a minefield and within shooting range of the US-affiliated states such as Egypt and the Emirates which were very eager to partake in joint military manoeuvres with "Israel" and Greece in the years that followed the attempted coup d’état on Erdoğan. 

    Turkey, however, acts according to her national interests and her rights to the riches of the Mediterranean Sea. Turkey also believes that protecting the Turkish dry homeland is tightly linked to protecting the “blue homeland” and her territorial waters, especially as the issue of the eastern Mediterranean is linked to national security from the side of the Aegean Sea through which Greece wants to blackmail Turkey in respect of the Cypriot issue, in addition to controlling the Turkish trade routes and plundering Turkey’s rights to the gas of the Mediterranean. 

  • Political Observation - UAE Traitorous Deal with the Jewish Entity 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - UAE Traitorous Deal with the Jewish Entity

    The deal of the UAE with the Jewish entity was not preceded by any notable precursors indicating the presence of an imminent agreement. The deal was rather announced via Twitter by US president Donald Trump. “Huge breakthrough today! Historic Peace Agreement between our two GREAT friends, Israel and the United Arab Emirates!” he tweeted. Meanwhile, an "Israeli" media outlet quoted reports in the US indicating that "Israel" had agreed to push back the issue of extending sovereignty in exchange for opening a representative office in the Emirates.

    Although we realise the treason and effrontery of the Muslim world’s rulers, the desperate attempts of the Jewish rulers to achieve normalisation or generate any kind of acceptance in the region, no matter how minimal, had already been noted in the past. However, the rulers of the Muslims’ lands, including the traitor Mohammed bin Zayed, are nowadays accepting full normalisation with the Jews without any regard for the Ummah’s Islam and her emotions. Netanyahu even talked from a position of strength about peace for peace without making any concessions. “Peace from a position of strength and might; this is the new peace we are committed to,” he said. He also invested in this agreement to win over the "Israeli" voters by claiming it was a victory he achieved “singlehandedly”.

    In fact, the circumstances surrounding the agreement and its timing denote that it came following the decision of presidential rival, Joe Biden, to appoint Kamala Harris, who has close ties with the Zionist Lobby “AIPAC”, as his running mate. Appointing an African American woman who has immigrant roots, is married to a Jew and an anti-racism activist close to the evangelical rightwing sympathetic towards the Zionist entity, and whose support for Biden dispels the notion of him being leftwing and helps him finalise the components of polarisation and mobilisation necessary for entering the electoral battle, all this makes her nomination to the post of vice-president a heavy blow to Donald Trump in the presidential elections. 

  • Political Observation - Macron’s Visit to Lebanon Following Beirut Port Blast 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Macron’s Visit to Lebanon Following Beirut Port Blast 

    We stated in our previous observation on the Beirut blast that the facts of the event pertinent to the cargo and its destination which was switched from Mozambique to Beirut, the circumstances surrounding the decision of the authorities to keep the cargo in the port and the ship owner to abandon it, and the emergence of a deliberate collusion to disregard the safety measures, all this indicates that the incident was plotted and the aim was to target the Lebanese regime, its sectarian structure and its government that gives Hezbollah the upper hand in political decision making.

    The event came within the framework of what has been planned for Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran including closing the chapter of the alleged resistance that guarantees Iran influence in the region, contrary to the plans of the US, and gives Hezbollah the pretext to keep its weapons, impose its willpower on the rest of the Lebanese forces and dictate its terms in relation to the Deal of the Century, the implementation of which will be at the expense of Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime. 

  • Political Observation - Breaking the Resolve of the Jordan Teachers Syndicate  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
     
    Political Observation - Breaking the Resolve of the Jordan Teachers Syndicate  
     
    One of the key political theories to control the masses is that of the philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli who stated in his book titled The Prince (Il Principe) that the ruler’s strategy was built upon anticipating chaos and a menace to his authority, and consequently, it would be imperative to establish a force to deter the masses and establish the relationship between the ruler and his subjects based on blackmail, i.e. authority in exchange for security. Machiavelli argued that submission to the ruler was part of the requisites of society’s security under the guise of providing security for the masses. Moreover, he recommended that the “Prince” to be like a ferocious beast, acting cunningly like a fox and fiercely like a lion to maintain law and order. 
     
    Hence, the ruler is not expected to make any concessions to the masses lest he should undermine his grandeur. Making a concession, in his opinion, would be a precedent which would embolden the masses to rebel and topple his regime.
  • Political Observation - Beirut Explosion 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Beirut Explosion

    The circumstances of the Beirut blast, starting from the shipment of ammonium nitrate six years ago, then the decision of the owner and crew to abandon the ship and its cargo and dump it in Lebanon, and the failure of the Lebanese authorities to take the necessary safety precautions despite their awareness of the dangers involved from previous experiences in the US and China, leads to the preponderant conclusion – although the investigation is yet to be completed and despite the lack of information – that the blast was deliberately planned and executed, especially as it came amid a host of unfavourable domestic and regional circumstances to Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Lebanese government brought by Hezbollah to sidestep the protests and its political demands, which were shrouded with livelihood-driven demands.

  • Political Observation - The “One-State Solution” and the Statements of Jordanian Prime Minister 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The “One-State Solution” and the Statements of Jordanian Prime Minister

    In an interview with the Guardian on Tuesday 21 July 2020, Jordanian prime minister Omar Razzaz said that with the sign of the ailing status of the decades-old two-state formulation, Jordan could view the creation of a single Palestinian-Israeli state favourably provided it gave equal rights to both peoples. He added: “But let’s work together on a one-state democratic solution. That, I think, we will look at very favourably. But closing one and wishful thinking about the other is just self-deception.” He then addressed the occupiers by saying:” Short of that, if we’re not going towards a two-state solution, let us know what we’re going towards, what kind of one-state solution we’re going towards.”

  • Political Observation - Armenia-Azerbaijan Rift & Its Exploitation to Pressurise Turkey 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Armenia-Azerbaijan Rift & Its Exploitation to Pressurise Turkey 

    Armenia and Azerbaijan have traded accusations about who had initiated the attack against the other. However, according to the statement of the Turkish government, it is Armenia who started the attack; and this is corroborated by a host of indications such as Armenia’s aspirations to occupy certain areas close to Tovuz that overlook Azerbaijan’s oil and gas pipelines which are of strategic importance to Turkey, Europe and "Israel", and the timing and circumstances of the event which are somehow connected to the Russo-Turkish rift over the Libyan file. 

    Armenia concocted the crisis spurred by the sympathetic stance of the US Congress towards the Armenians in their dispute with the Turks and Washington’s endeavour to lure Armenia and sever her links to Russia in order to complete her siege on the Russians. Armenia also took advantage of the strained relations between France, its sympathiser, and Turkey due to the Libyan issue, as well as Turkey’s differences with Russia in Libya and Idlib. This indicates that it was Russia who incited Armenia to attack Azerbaijan, who has close ties and significant interest with Turkey, in order to attract French and European pressure on Turkey and incite the pro-Armenian lobby in the US Congress, thus surrounding Turkey with some kind of isolation amid the West’s exasperation and Greece’s calls for imposing sanctions on Turkey over the Hagia Sophia issue; and all this with the aim of weakening her position in the Libyan file. 

  • Political Observation - Outlook of the Plan to Re-elect Trump  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Outlook of the Plan to Re-elect Trump 

    The outlook of the general plan to re-elect Donald Trump and the details of his campaign has become clear since the eve of Independence Day. America, which has been experiencing division due to the coronavirus pandemic followed by the protests against the killing of George Floyd, is now facing a political reality she has been denying for two centuries, namely that her entity was founded over the bodies and blood of Africans and Red Indians, and that her constitution was written on the basis of a compromise with slave owners. Such a political mechanism that seeks to achieve results without taking into account the method, nor the dangerous consequences and ramifications of destroying the values in order to conclude any kind of agreement, will eventually lead to the collapse of the philosophy of this hybrid state with the leave of Allah the Almighty. 

  • Political Observation - Restructuring the Iraqi Regime 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Restructuring the Iraqi Regime

    Although the Iraqi historian and researcher in security and strategic affairs, Hisham al-Hashimi, was not a significant figure on the Iraqi political scene, his assassination a few days ago, however, by unmasked assassins denoted a clear defiant message to prime minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi aimed at deterring him from going too far in curbing the Iranian influence in Iraq. The assassination of al-Hashimi came amidst the American pressures in their various forms and divergent levels to clip the wings of Iran and control her conduct in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon while paving the way for the regional solution stipulated by Trump’s Deal of the Century backed by the evangelical rightwing in the US. Al-Hashimi had close links with the Iraqi prime minister and he had been scathing in his criticism of Iran and the Popular Mobilisation Forces; his assassination came soon after the changes in the security leaderships introduced by the prime minister, which included dismissing Faleh al-Fayad, head and advisor of the National Security Council and chairman of the Popular Mobilization Forces, and replacing him by one of his close allies, namely General Abdul Ghani al-Asadi, former Commander of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces. 

  • Political Observation - Algeria’s Constitutional Amendments 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Algeria’s Constitutional Amendments

    Algerian President, Abdel Majid Taboun, announced soon after assuming his tenure that he would carry out a host of constitutional changes pertinent to the function of the armed forces, the identity of the country and the post of president. The Algerian army’s magazine in its June 2020 issue proposed constitutionalising Algeria’s participation in “peacekeeping” missions abroad under the auspices of the United Nations, the African Union or the League of Arab States. All this coincided with meetings president Abdel Majid Taboun held with the US and German ambassadors. According to the presidential communiqué on the meeting with the US ambassador, “bilateral relations and the situation in Libya and the region were reviewed.” The US ambassador for his part said: “I think we have a lot of work together to achieve our aims.” 

  • Political Observation - Al-Sisi, Algeria & Threats to Intervene in Libya  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Al-Sisi, Algeria & Threats to Intervene in Libya 

    The criminal Abdul Fattah al-Sisi told Egyptian air force combat units, on 20 June 2020 when he toured the western military region, to “be prepared to execute any mission within our borders or if necessary, beyond our borders.” This came in the aftermath of his failure to rescue the forces of Khalifah Haftar and the regression in international support and momentum to subjugate Tripoli to the dominion of Haftar, and after the Government of National Accord (GNA) forces had started their mobilisation to storm the city of Sirte with the help of Turkey. 

  • Political Observation - Instability in Yemen and Dominance of Southern Transitional Council over Socotra 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Instability in Yemen and Dominance of Southern Transitional Council over Socotra 

    On Friday 19 June, UAE-backed forces of the Southern Transitional Council (STC) stormed the building of the local administration in Socotra. Sources confirmed to Al-Jazeera that STC forces dominated the building of the Socotra security directorate in the city of Hadiboh, as clashes continued between government forces and armed STC operatives around the western gate of the city. A government source told Aljazeera that the Yemeni presidency had contacted Saudi authorities and requested their intervention in Socotra but to no avail. 

    The unfolding events in Yemen fall within the framework of the American initiative in the region and specifically within the context of liquidating the remnants of the “Arab Spring Revolutions” through the deep state and the forces averse to the volition of the people of the region who have not been allowed to rebel against the regimes and who have only been assisted by the West to let them vent their anger, make them despair of achieving liberation and revival, and to bring them back to the house of obedience, thus paving the way for an impotent Middle East due to the sectarian, ethnic, regional and federal fragmentation, and due to the distortion of the identity, effacement of the memory and the unprecedented squandering of resources, not to mention the official Arab regimes’ grovelling to enter into an alliance with the Jewish entity and their collusion to liquidate the Palestinian issue and safeguard the interests of the West in the region. 

  • Political Observation - Outline of the Region’s Current Events 

    Political Observation - Outline of the Region’s Current Events

    Political events in our region as a whole reflect two unmistakable realities:

    1 – The West is in unanimous agreement on keeping the region shackled, unable to achieve liberation and revival and on preventing the return of Islam to power. This is conspicuously reflected in Western support for the secular and liberal movement, the cultural orientation, the media and the education curricula. Distorting the memory and awareness, supporting religious and ethnic minorities, inciting regional and nationalist strife, impoverishing the masses and engrossing them in cheap struggle are also reflective of this Western tendency. 

    2 – Colonialist powers jostle for the riches of the region with all possible means but they share the responsibility of confronting, oppressing and humiliating the people of the region, irrespective of their differences over their colonialist interests. 

  • Political Observation - Settling the Palestinian Issue 


    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Settling the Palestinian Issue

    The challenge is settling the Palestinian issue rather than preserving peripheral identities 

    Bringing the last chapter of the Palestinian issue to a full and final conclusion has become a declared aim within the so-called Deal of the Century which reflects itself in the measures undertaken by Netanyahu and Trump vis-à-vis al-Quds and the Golan, the decision to annex 30% of the West Bank’s territory, Netanyahu’s red lines concerning a united al-Quds, and the refugees file. It further reflects itself in a conspicuous manner in the negotiations taking place between America and the usurping entity in isolation of the Arab sides and amid their collaboration. The Arab regimes are attempting to deliberately deviate the compass of the Palestinian issue by making the challenges of the Deal of the Century directed at the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority and by confining the options of resistance within the framework of adhering to the “two-state solution” in order to allegedly preserving the Jordanian and Palestinian identities. Hence, as the Gulf States and other Arab countries have acquired the pretext to deal with the criminal entity, and they even boast about this without any hesitation or embarrassment, such as the UAE, since they are outside the circle of struggle with the Jewish entity now that Iran has volunteered to dismiss the usurping entity from its role in terrifying them, the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority amplified the threat of annexing the occupied Jordan Valley and confined their vision and pinned their hopes in tackling this issue on the results of the US presidential elections and on the return of the Democrats to power, after Netanyahu had dashed their hopes in the “two-state” solution, and after they had been let down and sacrificed by the Gulf States in exchange for their continuance in power; and this will be adopted by the Jordanian regime and the Palestinian Authority as a pretext to compromise the Palestinian issue further. 

  • Political Observation - Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defence Minister Shoygu Visit to Ankara Postponed Amidst Accelerating Events in Libya and Challenges Undermining Bashar Assad’s Regime  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Defence Minister Shoygu Visit to Ankara Postponed Amidst Accelerating Events in Libya and Challenges Undermining Bashar Assad’s Regime 

    Russian foreign and defence ministers postponed their visit to Ankara to debate the Syrian and Libyan files one day after they had announced the visit scheduled for Sunday 14 June, following a telephone call by Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. Although Cavusoglu denied the presence of any differences in the Libyan file, his tone however denoted otherwise; he said: “There are no problems in terms of the basic principles in negotiations with the Russians. The table has not been shaken for this reason or that and we need to talk about further details.” 

  • Political Observation - Syrian Situation Updates & Anticipation of the Caesar Act  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Syrian Situation Updates & Anticipation of the Caesar Act 

    Federation is beyond a shadow of a doubt the American vision for Syria now that northern Syria has been separated by a geographic strip stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Iraqi border, which is deemed as part of the basic arrangements for the rise of a Kurdish entity which in the future will include areas of Iraq, Turkey and Iran. The rise of the Kurdish entity has, however, been deferred and plans are afoot to establish it within a Syrian federation as a first step towards total separation in the future, exactly as America did in Iraq, especially since the Kurdish issue is from an American perspective related to federalising Turkey rather than Syria. 

  • Political Observation - "Israeli" High Court Ruling  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - "Israeli" High Court Ruling 

    On 9 June , France24 Arabic reported that the "Israeli" high court struck down a law that had allowed the "Israeli" government to acquisition privately owned land in the West Bank in exchange for material compensation. The "Israeli" Knesset approved this law in 2017 which had paved the way for seizing Palestinian land on which settlers built their homes without an official permit from the authorities, in exchange for material compensation to the Palestinian owners. "Israeli" minister of Settlement Affairs, Tzipi Hotovely, commented : “the High Court today declared war on the right of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel.” She added that the best way to respond to the court was more annexation and settlements. 

  • Political Observation - Protests Resume in Lebanon 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Protests Resume in Lebanon

    Hundreds of protesters took to the streets on Saturday 6 June in the capital Beirut and specifically around the streets leading to parliament in a move symbolising their resentment towards all the political forces and in protest against the economic situation that has been deteriorating in an unprecedented manner since 17 October following the decision of Saad al-Hariri’s government to impose a tax on calls made over WhatsApp. Subsequently the anger of the masses from all sects erupted in Lebanon and this led the 14 March forces, namely Saad al-Hariri, Samir Geagea and former president Amine Gemayel, to mobilise the masses under slogans designed to centralise the national identity anew at the expense of the sectarian identities, in order to weaken the influence of Hezbollah and its allies in Lebanon in line with the phase America kick-started by tightening the noose around the necks of the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, clipping Iran’s wings and downsizing its influence while executing the Deal of the Century with steps such as declaring al-Quds as the capital of the usurping entity, imposing "Israeli" sovereignty on the Golan and shifting the relationship of the Arab regimes from normalisation with the Jewish entity to establishing an alliance with it. 

  • Political Observation - Al-Sisi Declaration 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Al-Sisi Declaration

    1 –Cairo meeting’s Objective Between al-Sisi, Haftar and Aquila Saleh

    The persistence of America, Europe and Russia on implementing a ceasefire and effectuating the political solution denotes their intention to prevent the infighting from spreading to eastern Libya. This is why the aim of the Cairo agreement between the collaborators Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, Khalifah Haftar and Aquila Saleh was to send a message to the people of Libya in the western region warning them against allowing Operation Peace Storm led by the government of national accord (GNA) extend beyond the city of Sirte. Al-Sisi said “no side will be allowed to achieve a military settlement”, referring to the GNA. This is why several unknown jetfighters raided the positions of the GNA forces around the city of Sirte soon after the Cairo meeting and the issuing of the communiqué. Hence, America turned Egypt into a safety valve and a defence line for eastern Libya in order to halt the advance of the forces of Tripoli and Misrata, forcing them to stop at Sirte. This would enable the oilfields to remain under the control of the east and to be used as a bargaining chip to compel the west to accept the political solution stipulated by the Berlin Conference. This economic pressure is conducted with the collusion of al-Sarraj who was eager to meet the US ambassador to Ankara, David Satterfield, whenever he visited Turkey, who for his part stressed the need to implement the stipulations of the Berlin Conference. 

  • Political Observation - Divisions & Rivalries between US Lobby Groups  

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Divisions & Rivalries between US Lobby Groups

    The divisions and rivalries between lobby groups in America, which in turn impact on the performance of the two parties, are pertinent to the priorities of politics and the interests of influential forces in the decision-making mechanism even within the one single camp. The situation was not always like this, but by observing domestic political proceedings in the US during the last four decades and since the Vietnam war, we have concluded that there exists a difference between the two parties that had no substantial affect on steering the political programmes according to the function of each party, the interaction between domestic and foreign issues, and their reciprocal impact on the interests of the elites’ clubs and lobby groups in accordance with the requirements of each phase based on the assessment of the decision-makers.

  • Political Observation - Unrest in America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - Unrest in America

    Defence Secretary Objects to Deploying Troops in US Cities

    Following the US Defence Secretary’s objection to Trump’s threats to deploy US troops to quell the protests, 89 former defence staff, including four former defence secretaries, namely Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, Ash Carter and William Cohen, issued a statement published by the Washington Post in which they slammed Donald Trump, warned him that deploying the army to quell the protests would lead to undermining the trust between the masses and the army, and reminded him that the army had been established to fight America’s enemies and not its citizens. Although the statement expressed a high sense of responsibility and an aversion to undermining the military doctrine epitomising the centrality of the people in the philosophy of the democratic system, unlike the centrality of the ruler in tyrannical regimes, it does however reveal the depth of the rift within US society despite the fact that Donald Trump and his opponents act on the basis of protecting the ruling institutions guaranteeing the interests of the capitalist class in all its various orientations. 

  • Political Observation - Unfolding Events in Libya after Tripoli’s Recapture 

    Political Observation - Unfolding Events in Libya after Tripoli’s Recapture

    Now that the Government of National Accord (GNA) forces have retaken control of all the western coastal cities and recaptured al-Watiya airbase on 18 May, Tripoli has been purged from the remnants of Haftar’s forces and the GNA forces have entered the city of Tarhunah on Friday 5 June, the path is paved for the execution of the Berlin Conference’s recommendations which are expected to marginalise the major powers and shackle the fighting factions with political solutions as America has now achieved all her aims from the proxy war.

  • Political Observation - The Riots in America 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation - The Riots in America

    Electing Donald Trump to the post of president in the US expressed from the onset the philosophy and strategy the US inherited from Europe, which is built on the “whites’ racial centrality”. During his presidential inauguration ceremony, Donald Trump surrounded himself with white men in a move seen as a reaction or rectification of the mistake of appointing the African American Obama to the White House.
    Trump’s accession to power reflected a shift from political diplomacy to the strategy of confrontation which is characterised by imposing the fait accompli, shunning common concepts and adopting an obstinate stance. This policy is built on the thoughts of Kevin Phillips, one of Nixon’s chief strategists, and is known as “positive polarisation” which was described by the US Congress in 1970 as follows: "The Administration is working the hidden veins of fear, racism and resentment which lie deep in Middle America. Respect for the past, distrust of the future, the politics of 'againstness'."

  • Political Observation - Syrian Regime in the Middle of the Storm 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


    Political Observation - Syrian Regime in the Middle of the Storm 

    Several indications have recently emerged suggesting that a consensus on an alternative regime to Bashar Assad’s is in the offing. Assad’s regional Iranian backer has been dealt a heavy blow and Russia is no longer eager to protect his survival now that she has secured her interests and her share in the reconstruction plan via Turkey and the Syrian opposition, as well as US approval. Other indications have also cropped up in the shape of a cleavage within the hard nucleus of the regime, Bashar’s attempts to disrupt the draft constitution and to upset the ceasefire agreement. 

  • The Reality of the British Snap Elections 

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    Political Observation

    The Reality of the British Snap Elections

    Although the British prime minister Theresa May had stated that there would be not be a general election until 2020, she unexpectedly announced her intention to hold a snap general election on 18 April 2017.

    May justified her decision by stating "division in Westminster will risk our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty... So we need a general election and we need one now."

Scroll paused

Latest Articles

  • 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 Read More
  • Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Expounding the Concept of International Struggle International struggle occurs between the willpower of the influential powers in international relations. It aims at subjugating or abolishing the opponent for doctrinal, expedient or nationalistic reasons. Political thinkers say the struggle undergoes several stages which they describe Read More
  • Political Observation - Is Coronavirus a Conspiracy or a Pandemic?

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Is Coronavirus a Conspiracy or a Pandemic? Conspiracies have been a reality since old times: The nobles are conspiring to kill you [Al-Qasa-20]. Hence, one cannot deny them and without a shadow of a doubt, there are several motives and validations to judge the Read More
  • 1
  • Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم   Political Observation - The Escalation in Al-Quds     The events of al-Quds have come amidst the preparations for the Palestinian elections which have been impeded by the split of the Fatah movement in the electoral lists, and amidst the efforts of Netanyahu to form a government Read More
  • Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Statements of Mohammed bin Salman   Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman says Saudi endorses the Qur’an as a constitution for the kingdom and is 90% in agreement with the Biden administration. He is obviously seeking to combine between paradoxes, namely flirting with Read More
  • 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 Read More
  • 1
  • 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 Read More
  • Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Conflict in Ethiopia The Ethiopian armed forces announced on 28 November 2020 that they had seized control of the city of Mekelle, the capital of the Tigray Region, following the fierce battles which erupted on 4 November between the central government in Addis Read More
  • The Splitting of Sudan

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem The Political Comment The leaders of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) have recently made several statements on the future of Southern Sudan, indicating clearly that Southern Sudan is proceeding towards secession, which is exactly what America has been scheming for. This crime could not have been Read More
  • 1
  • Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Myanmar Coup D’état The Burmese army carried out a coup d’état on Monday 1 February 2021 that resulted in toppling president Win Myint and arresting prime minister Aung San Suu Kyi along with other leading figures of her party. The army appointed vice-president Myint Read More
  • Political Observation - The Kuala Lumpur Summit 2019

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Kuala Lumpur Summit 2019 Malaysian president Mahathir Mohammed has invited some leaders of the Islamic countries and a crowd of scholars and intellectuals numbering about 400 to attend an Islamic summit in the Malaysian capital for economic and financial objectives, as well as Read More
  • The Reasons and the Fallouts of North Korea’s Decision to Cancel the Armistice Agreement

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions On the Reasons and the fallouts of North Korea’s decision to cancel the Armistice agreement North Korea announced on 13 March 2013 that it had cancelled the 1953 armistice with South Korea which ended the Korean war of 1950. North Korea issued a warning Read More
  • 1
  • The New START Treaty

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم   The New START Treaty    The Russo-American New START Treaty on long-range ballistic missiles was signed in 2010 with each side given time to meet its commitments. It expired in 2018 but was extended to 2026 when Biden took office.     The New START Treaty Read More
  • Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Reading of the Bitcoin - US Drive to Dominate Cryptocurrency On Monday 8 February Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Inc. announced, in its annual disclosure, that it had invested about $1.5 billion in the cryptocurrency Bitcoin in the last month. This disclosure came following the accelerated rise Read More
  • Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it?

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - Has the Deep State Lost Control of the US Political Reality or has it Restored it? Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday 6 January leading to the joint session of Congress to confirm President-elect Joe Biden's election win to be suspended Read More
  • 1
  • 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 Read More
  • Political Observation - Protests in Russia

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم    Political Observation - Protests in Russia    Tens of thousands in Moscow, St Petersberg and several other Russian cities took to the streets on 23 January 2021 in support of calls for the release of anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny who was arrested immediately upon his return Read More
  • Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Political Observation - The Fallouts of Brexit & the Trade Deal Britain and the European Union (EU) reached a Brexit trade deal on Thursday 24 December 2020. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said “everything that the British public were promised during the 2016 referendum and in the Read More
  • 1

Latest Culture

  • Is Fighting Against Occupation Jihad?

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions Do we consider the fighting against the armies occupying the Muslims' lands, as is the case today, and in the absence of the Amir, be deemed as Jihad? Do we deem it part of the defensive Jihad, knowing that the Answer to a Question Read More
  • Q&A - Mutawatir Hadith (number of narrators)

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Answers to Questions Question: Why do we say that the Mutawatir Hadith is the one narrated by at least five persons whose collusion on a lie is impracticable, whilst there is disagreement on the acceptable number amongst the scholars? Some of them say three and others say Read More
  • Mujtahid & Muqallid (Q&A)

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Question & Answer Question: It is mentioned on page 58 of the official version of the book entitled The System of Islam that, “the Muttabe’ (follower) is the one who is lacking some accredited Shari’ah sciences”, whereas in fact, this description fits the Ammi (common) and not the Read More
  • 1
  • America Leads West in War of Extermination against Islam and Muslims

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Dear Muslims, Salvage Yourselves   America Leads West in War of Extermination against Islam and Muslims    Some Western institutions classify the Islamic World as the region that rejects integration. This means the region that rejects Western civilisation and its Capitalist concepts. This is why the Read More
  • Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Communiqué to the Islamic Ummah What has been occurring in Iraq is not unintentional. Steering Iraq towards drawing sectarian and ethnic borders is part of a plot that has been executed meticulously and gradually to portray that the children of the Ummah are the ones who want Read More
  • Appeal to the Sagacious Islamic Ummah (Syria)

    Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem Appeal to the Sagacious Islamic Ummah The League of Muslim Scholars held a conference in Cairo on 13 June 2013 under the theme “The Stance of the Ummah’s Scholars towards the Events in Syria”. The conference attracted a large number of scholars and sheikhs who debated the Read More
  • 1
  • 1