Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Answers to Questions

First:

The talk about America’s designs for the region and the generating of new arrangements for it - which the Party had previously outlined in several publications – has in fact been a talking point amid American politicians. Furthermore, these policies are in total harmony with the New World Order the birth of which America declared its birth and talked about in the wake of the Soviet Union’s demise. This New World Order was designed to enable America to work towards leading the world according to her own orientations. With regard to the Middle East, it was about this time in the past decade, in July 1992 to be precise, that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Edward P. Djerejian delivered an important speech at the Meridian Centre, in the wake of his visit to the Gulf in February of the same year.

To quote from his speech, “… the American policy on the Middle East region during the nineties will not only be based on protecting the energy resources and settling the Arab/Israeli struggle, but it will also be based on a third pillar, which is equally important and related to protecting human rights, pluralism, women’s rights and people’s participation in ruling matters.” He added, threatening the regimes in the Middle East, “Those regimes which show a readiness to undertake specific steps towards organising free elections, establishing independent judiciary systems, consolidating the rule of law, relaxing the restrictions imposed on the media and respecting the rights of minorities and the rights of the individuals, will find us ready to acknowledge and support their efforts. On the other hand, those who move in the opposite direction will find us ready to talk frankly and to act accordingly.”

It is noted that afterwards the regimes in the Middle East proceeded gingerly and at a varied pace towards implementing the “Third Pillar” of American policy in the Middle East.  In other words, they started holding elections, proceeding towards reducing restrictions on the media and endorsing "human rights", "minorities rights" and "women rights". It is also noted that the relationship between America and some of her agents in the region worsened, such as the Egyptian and Saudi regimes, due to America's flagrant meddling in their internal affairs. This is with regard to their progress towards the reforms (according to the American manner) with little consideration to the negative domestic effects on those rulers.

Perhaps the events of 11th September were the reason behind forcibly endorsing the "Third Pillar" in the American policy towards the Middle East. The American administration's excuse for devoting all this attention to this "Pillar" is its willingness to dry up the sources of terrorism and to work towards consolidating stability in the region. The American administration deems the motives of terrorism, which it had used for many years in order to implement her policy throughout the world, are reflected in the rise of the birthrates in the Middle Eastern societies, in addition to increased poverty, oppression and inequality. This was revealed by a report compiled by the American National Research Centre – an independent organisation that advises Congress and the American administration. To quote from the report: "The conventional styles of oppression that have been practised during the decades of the Cold War, will not be enough to abolish terrorism." The report added in a reference to understanding the main roots of terrorism: "Many societies encourage terrorism due to the high population increase, economic inequality and poverty, and when all these factors blend with strong anti-western thoughts, motivated sometimes by a religious tendency, the ground would be fertile for the support of terrorism."

What would be preponderant in perceiving what is occurring is that America has not sensed any significant effectiveness in her new Middle Eastern policies, nor any encouraging changes within the Middle Eastern societies – according to the specifications she had laid down - which has led her to exert a different kind of pressure on those societies, and specifically through the use of the stick, in addition to increasing her presence on the ground in order to ensure the desired results. This is confirmed by Washington's persistent demands from these regimes to reform the economic and financial institutions in the Middle East, to be in line with her new policy, aimed at reshaping the region and implementing the appropriate arrangements. Also, it has recently been revealed that the Bush administration was about to launch a diplomatic and media campaign in order to embed democratic concepts and practices in the Arab World and Iran and to reform and develop the educational, economic and political institutions and to defend human rights in the countries of the region; this was in line with America's endeavours to confront and contain the aggravations of the September "terrorist" attacks, claiming that the political dictatorial regimes have generated fertile ground for extremism and terrorism. According to certain sources Secretary of State Colin Powell will reveal next month the reform plan, which includes financing a host of preliminary programmes to train political activists, journalists and organisations’ leaders in the region.

While America is working towards consolidating so called democracy and human rights, and what is referred to as consistent development, and while she is demanding the implementation of certain reforms, according to her own method, be it on the plane of the regimes and their relationships with the masses, or on the plane of designing general conventions for the peoples in the region, she is on the other face of the coin working towards tightening her grip on the security aspect in the region, by increasing the presence of her troops or by increasing the ties between  the Arab security apparatuses and the CIA, under the banner of cooperation and coordination in order to fight "terrorism", in addition to concocting a host of media trumpets that could shape public opinion in the region, with the possibility of using these trumpets as a stick if necessary against  certain rulers.

Therefore, America's progress according to the policy of the "Third Pillar" and the illustration of her vision towards the roots of terrorism indicates the extent of her hatred towards Islam and towards the Muslim people of the region, as well as the extent of her work towards plundering their riches and the faculties of their lands. Islam is the root of "terrorism" according to them and the terrorists of the world and the lands that harbour them are almost exclusively confined to the Muslims and the Islamic lands according to the statements of the American administration officials.

Second:

The Party has already answered in an "Answer To a Question" leaflet dated 22nd February 2002 a similar question about including Iraq in the "Axis Of Evil" and the threat of military action against it. The Party mentioned that the aim of describing a country as being part of the "Axis of Evil" is reflected in two matters: 1- Rallying support of the American people for Bush and his Republican Party ahead of the forthcoming elections, in the hope of bringing a maximum number of his party's members into Congress. 2- Sending a message to the world highlighting America's determination to lead it according to its orientations and the new conventions that she is working towards anchoring in order to strengthen her hegemony over the peoples of the world and over its resources.

The Party has also mentioned that America has been industrious in highlighting Iraq's role and its strength, as well as its endeavours to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in order to deter the Jews on the one hand and to establish ample pretexts to maintain her presence in the Gulf on the other hand.
 
Therefore, the recent American threats do not deviate from what the Party has already mentioned. However, what is worth drawing one's attention to is that it would be wrong to turn the plane of the Iraqi issue into whether America is going to strike Iraq or not. In other words, it would be wrong the study the issue on the basis of whether the strike is inevitable or not. The plane of the issue should rather be viewed on the basis of the aims that America strives to achieve from threatening to strike Iraq. The issue pertaining to America threatening to strike Iraq is part of a series of actions that America is undertaking to achieve specific aims on the plane of her domestic and foreign policy.

Therefore, the talk of arms of mass destruction that they claim Iraq possesses, and the occasioning of a storm over the arrival of American forces in Jordan, then the Israeli deployment of missile batteries among the settlements, which sent waves of terror among the settlers, coupled with the statements made by the Israeli defence minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer to Yediot Achronot, and in which he said: "The theory under which I work in my quality as defence minister is that if the Americans decide to proceed and undertake an action against  Iraq, the Iraqis will not give us one moment of respite from the onset." All this is designed to generate an atmosphere of insecurity among the Israeli mainstream, as long as they do not submit to the peace requirements and as long as they continue to impede the work towards integrating their entity in the region, as it has recently been promised by prince Abdullah, through his initiative that the Arab League adopted and which Iraq accepted.
 
On the domestic front, the competition between the Republican and the Democratic parties is at its fiercest. This was intensified further by the scandals and the accusations of financial and administrative corruption, which has touched some of those close to the president, and even the president himself. A link was made between Bush and Cheney in some issues. If all this was added to the economic slowdown, it would have a negative effect on the elections results and dampen the efforts of bringing a large number of Republicans into Congress, as the president and his party were hoping; hence, it was imperative to work towards diverting the attentions of the American public towards the outside world and away from domestic issues.
 
As for the message that America wants to convey to the world about her determination to lead it in accordance with her vision and the new conventions that she has been working towards anchoring with the aim of consolidating her hegemony of the peoples of the world and the faculties of their countries, what has been mentioned regarding the Middle East in the Answer to a Question explains an important part of it.
 
Therefore, the issue of toppling some of the current regimes in the Middle East and replacing them, after those regimes had built their policies on oppression, impoverishing people, silencing them and plundering their resources, will be a fait accompli despite the services that those miserable traitors had provided America with, by handing her the dignity of their peoples and the faculties of their lands on a silver plate.

Perhaps the Iraqi regime will be an example and a Middle Eastern starting point in the drive towards "reforming" the Arab regimes – according to the American manner. This seems evidently clear from the undertaking made by the Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz when he stopped in Ankara on his way to Kabul, and after he pledged to work towards toppling Saddam Hussein. He said, "Democracy will start from Iraq to all the Arab countries.” And he added, “A democratic Iraq will be a significant driving force in the region.” This is in addition to what was mentioned about the purport of a visit made by a senior Russian official to countries neighbouring Iraq, stipulating that the United States was reviewing a new plan under the title of "Baghdad First."
 
It seems like America's determination to topple the ruling system in Baghdad has become evident. it has been mentioned that the American president has recently met with his senior aides and he was quoted as saying that  the decision  to topple Saddam had already been taken and that the debate focused on the manner and the timing of the operation. The American Defence Secretary mentioned on 28the August 2002 what reflected America's determination to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein even if America were to go it alone, adding that the world would afterwards make its decision and follow suit.
 
As for the issue of the timing related to launching a strike against Saddam, it is apparently dependent on the extent of the benefit that America may draw from exploiting her threats to Iraq on both the domestic and foreign fronts, especially on the plane of the Israeli mainstream and its shift towards proceeding in what is called the peace process.

Perhaps the statements made by some former and current American officials, in addition to the statements made by certain leaders in Europe and the Middle East, pertaining to opposing a military strike against Iraq or expressing reservations about the strike, do serve their purpose in delaying the strike until America deems fit to do so.

It has become clear that Saddam Hussein is no longer suitable for the next phase, especially with America's endeavour to generate a host of new arrangements and a new structure for the region. Although Saddam has been and still is serving American interests, his distorted image before the world, which America has devised in order to serve her interests, does not qualify him to remain in office, especially because America has already used up most of what she had wanted to achieve in terms of aims through him. America will use the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a lesson for anyone who appears to be slack in implementing what she wants in the region.

Third:

What has been noted from the harsh tone that the American administration adopted recently towards Iran is that America is aiming to push forward the reformist movement towards democracy and freedoms and towards integrating Iran within what is called the international community.
 
America is brandishing the stick to hint that she is proceeding towards generating change in the western border (Iraq) as she had generated it in the eastern front (Afghanistan). At the same time, the harsh tone of the American administration will lend the reformist wing in Teheran a much-needed boost against the so called conservative wing, through the fiery and defiant responses and statements made by the reformists. The statements made by Khatemi recently indicate this clearly. These actions are part of the deception practiced against the children of this Ummah with the collaboration of her rulers the traitors.

Fourth:

Since the American president announced on 6th September 2001 – before the 11th September events - the appointment of former Senator John Danforth (priest) to the post of presidential envoy, in an attempt to put an end to the civil war in Sudan, it was concluded that the new American administration had started proceeding seriously towards separating Southern Sudan and joining it with the countries of the Great Lakes basin, with America aiming to turn its countries into a strong base that would serve to safeguard her interests and to proceed from the eastern flank of the African continent to consolidate her hegemony over Africa and brush off the remnants of any French influence.
 
Danforth had already paved the way for a ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains, when America sponsored in January a series of talks which resulted in the ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains. It is worth mentioning that the issue of the truce in the Nuba Mountains was the first phase that Danforth had proposed to the warring factions, as a prelude to establishing peace and ending the civil war in Sudan.
 
By starting to agree on the details of the Mashakus agreement, the warring factions have effectively proceeded towards settling the issue of separating Southern Sudan and the Horn of Africa and establishing stability in the region, according to the drawn up plan. As for the objection expressed by Egypt, this was merely a media role that Egypt had already played, which will make the Southerners more eager to execute the Mashakus agreement and even facilitate the implementation of the details; besides, Egypt does not wish to appear on the Arab world as being supportive of the separation.

What is really heartbreaking is the manner by which these rulers dare to feign their love of Islam and give people the impression that they are implementing a constitution and rules taken from Islam, then they talk about the necessity of discarding some of the Sharia'h rules under the pretext that these impede what they call "national unity"; then they go on to play their role in paving the way for the adoption of secularism. All this is being implemented and adopted without anyone challenging them. They caused the depletion of the land and they ruined people's lives under the banner of Islam, which they claimed –falsely- that they had been reviving; then they went on to bury it, by deterring people from thinking about implementing it once they portrayed the return of Islam as an omen for the return of calamities, poverty and devastation.

Fifth:

It seems that the current suspension of martyrdom operations has been agreed upon, though the agreement has not been announced to spare Hamas and Jihad any embarrassment.

The Media Committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir

22nd Jumada Al-Akhira 1423h

31st August 2002

www.hizbuttahrir.org