Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Raheem

Answers to Questions

1- It is important to study the issues according to their original plane when making a political link. This would be by identifying the root from which the events have originated and the track towards which they are proceeding. It would be wrong to pile up the events and the issues on the top of each other without the presence of a link between them, or for simply suspecting the presence of a link. In order to maintain the soundness of political perception, it is imperative to discard logic and not to resort to universal analogy and generalisation. Also, a political issue must not be stripped of its surrounding circumstances. For instance, the United States resorts to the policy of dual containment by employing Iran and Iraq to place pressure on Israel and the Gulf states. It is however imperative when studying these actions at their original plane, to differentiate between the political  actions that Iraq undertakes, with the aim of pressurising Israel, and the actions aimed at pressurising the Gulf states. It is true that to merely mention that Iraq possesses arms of mass destruction is liable to exert pressure on both sides. However, the accuracy in the opinion necessitates observing the political circumstances surrounding the Iraqi move towards applying pressure, so that the intended side is recognised and so that the progress of the political situation in the American plans is also perceived through the side targeted by the pressure. This is so because the pressure on the Gulf states reveals the obstacles impeding the American plan in dominating the Gulf, while the pressure on Israel reveals genuine obstacles impeding the progress of the peace process form the Israeli side, be it with regard to the Israel public opinion or the Israeli government. 2- The unilateral dominion of the United States  in the international situation and the elimination of her international rivals from influencing international relations –except to the extent that America allows and according to what serves her interests in international issues- has made her international political actions proceed towards reshaping and rearranging the international situations, in terms of regions, systems and concepts, to suit her unrivalled dominion over the international situation. This is the general outline to what is occurring in terms of world events, and this is confirmed by reality.

The removal of tension between the states in the various regions and the stabilisation of their conditions is a palpable matter. It conforms with the aspirations of the United States to consolidate her status as the sole superpower and to alleviate the burdens of running the world. Besides, stability in the various regions of the world is a natural outcome to the unilateral dominion of the international situation.

Hence, rapprochement between the various states is a general strategy of America that reflects her unrivalled hegemony. However, the rapprochement between a country and another ought to be studied according to the specifics of the region and the nature of the American interests. for instance, the Sudanese reconciliation should not be studied within the framework of the peace process, even if it coincided with the endeavour to hold an Arab summit aimed at undertaking a host of vital resolution pertaining to the peace process, and even if Sudan is an Arab state and part of the Middle East region from a geographical perspective. If one were to scrutinise the issues of Sudan, he would deduce that they have no connection with the Middle East issue, and that they have no impact on the unfolding of its political events. The issues of Sudan form part of the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa, where Sudan is backing the opposition movements of those countries, while they in turn embrace the Sudanese opposition movements. Hence, in order to put an end to the tension in the region of the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa, it was imperative to lure the Sudanese opposition in exile. This has led to the reshaping of the Sudanese regime on the basis of national reconciliation. Hence, the fabricated crisis between Al-Bashir and Al-Turabi was an inevitable outcome to what is being planned for Sudan and the region. This is the plane of the Sudanese issue, and it has no connection with what occurs in the Middle East ; it would be wrong to mix up the issues and pile them up on the  top of each other without the presence eof a link between them, or merely suspecting the existence of a link, or merely for the sake of making a link anyway.
 
As for the combining of the Saudi-Yemeni rapprochement, the Qatari-Bahraini rapprochement and the Moroccan-Algerian rapprochement, as well as the Sudanese reconciliation, and making this a prelude to the Arab-Arab rapprochement and then piling it up on the top of the peace process, i.e. placing pressure on Israel, this does not serve the purpose of political understanding even if were coincidentally sound.

This is so because the rapprochement between the various states of the world is studied on the international situation’ plane. The rapprochement as a concept and the removal of tension is a new American strategy that serves the unilateral sway of the United States  in the international situation. The rapprochement between the Arab states falls within this plane, while observing the specifics of each region.

Hence, the Moroccan- Algerian rapprochement should be studied on the plane of reviving the Maghreban Union, thus paving the way for holding the forthcoming American-Maghreban Partnership. The Sudanese reconciliation and the Al-Bashir-Al-Turabi crisis should be studied on the plane of stabalising the situation in the region of the Great Lakes and the Horn of Africa. The embellishment of Gaddafi’s and Iran’s image should be studied on the plane of reintegrating them into the international community, thus paving the way for America to invest openly in these countries, now that she has achieved her aim from their political isolation, namely preventing her competitors from investing in them, and now that the American companies have pressed the American administration to lift the sanctions imposed on Libya and Iran. America is also planning to assign to Libya and Iran a new role that suits the international changes that are currently taking place. The same could be said about the coup d’état that took place recently in the Ivory Coast. It should not viewed on the plane of the Franco-American struggle, despite the presence of a traditional relationship between General Robert Guy and France. However, the plane of the issue is related to what the United States is preparing for the African continent. America prefers to transfer the reins of power in the Ivory Coast to her powerful agent, Dr Watara, former Prime Minister and leader of the Republican Party, the main opposition party in the Ivory Coast. Dr Watara studied at Pennsylvania University between 1963 and 1972. He worked at the IMF as Director of African Affairs, and as Deputy Chief Executive in 1994. The United States wishes to place Watara in power in the Ivory Coast because of his experience in African affairs and his broad relations with the African leaders, thanks to the various posts that he had held at the IMF and to his spell as Governor of the West African Central Commercial Bank. This makes him the most suitable personality to rule the Ivory Coast according to the American criteria.

As for the Bahrain-Qatar rapprochement, in the wake of the International Court of Justice verdict on the border dispute between them over some land and some islands, this should be studied on the plane of reshaping the Arab Gulf. The United States works towards unifying the political stance of the Gulf states, as a prelude to the transformation of the political life in the Gulf as a whole. America aims to shift the Gulf towards democracy, the banner of which she is carrying internationally. The unification of the political stance of the Gulf states, once the tensions between its states have been removed, will lead to the generation of a general political climate for the ruling system that the United States endeavours to establish in the region. Hence, some of the regimes, such as the Saudi regime, will be compelled to concede its specific characters and melt within the general political climate of the region, even if this were in a gradual manner.

The United States  has already started practically to implement this policy through the activation of democracy in Kuwait, who is the most qualified Gulf state to implement the democratic model, and then to generalise it over the other states of the region. It is noted that Qatar has already started to proceed on the same pattern. Recently, Qatar organised local elections, which were marked by a huge participation of women candidates, which is deemed as a precedent for the Gulf region. Furthermore, America uses Al-Jazeerah satellite television channel as a tool to influence the Gulf public opinion, and to reshape people’s concepts in the Gulf on the basis of democracy. This obliges us to mobilise  all our energies, awaken the fervour of  the sincere persons in the Gulf and multiply our efforts in order to foil the American plan which aims at making democracy  the trend of the region. This will be by concentrating on the Kufr of democracy, exposing the treacherous collaboration of its champions from among the locals and rekindling the high values in society.

3- It is inaccurate to claim that the picture is not clear yet with regard to the Emir of Bahrain and the king of Morocco and it is also inaccurate to claim also that king Abdullah is a British agent and that the three of them do not dare challenge the American plans, at least at the present time. The preponderant conjunctions indicate that they are up to their necks in the American plans and their political actions speak for themselves and clearly indicate their collaboration with America.

4- However, what makes the picture unclear around them is the lingering illusion that Britain still has a role in international politics, and the influence this illusion generates when events are analysed, especially when those who partake in these events are from among the residues of the deep-rooted British agents.

Besides, some did not pay attention to the developments that occurred in the Anglo-American relations, as a result of the change in the international situation, especially after 1991 and after the arrival if the British Labour to power.

On the other hand the unclear picture about the Emir of Bahrain, the king of Morocco and the king of Jordan is due to the fact that they are novices in their agency to America, their families were groomed by the British, their have no ruling experience and they are beginners in treacherous activity. They seem to be cautious and fearful of America’s wrath. They witness America throwing her agents in the dustbins of hsitory, such as Soharto, Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haqq and Nawaz Sharif among others. They realise that they are in the uni-polar political era and not in the era of their fathers, when the power bases were diverse and each power used to attempt to attract the agents to its side; then this power would be obliged to maintain those agents and protect them from its international foes. They even realise that the price of the agent, under the current unilateral dominion of the United States, is cheap and he can be replaced very cheaply, if not free of charge. What they do not realise is the United States  is working towards abolishing the dictatorial regimes which contradict her call for democracy and whose oppression, enslavement and injustice is embedded in people’s memory. What they do not realise also is that America is working towards establishing the regimes that will be acceptable to their peoples and that she is endeavouring to reduce her dependence on agents in order to maintain her interests. She is working towards spreading her values and concepts about life in order to dominate people and avoid their threat on her interests. Hence, America pretends to be amicable and courteous towards these rulers, in order to reassure the future generation of rulers in the rest of the Arab states. They do not realise that she is slowly and secretly working towards curbing their rule, as a prelude towards removing them and erasing the history of their families, who were deeply-rooted in their collaboration with the British at the expense of America’s interests.

The rulers do not also realise that the republican system is an ideological issue for a Capitalist state like America. This system must be propagated and imposed upon all the peoples of the world, sooner or later. Besides, now that her rivals have disappeared, America deems the republican system as the safest in her bid to safeguard her interests against the potential threat posed by the masses. 

What these rulers fail to perceive is the mentality that steers America’s policy and make her think-tanks plan the change of rulers by telephone, in order to contain and extinguish any mass movement by way of changing the faces, like she did with Soharto, who was removed from power just few hours after receiving instruction from Albright by telephone. America has also easily and smoothly ended the rule of Zeroual before he had finished his presidential term, and brought in her agent Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who is more capable of dealing with the domestic crisis of Algeria and the file of the Maghreban Union.

5- As for the Emirates, it is most likely that she shifted towards proceeding with America in the wake of the Gulf War. This is reflected in her political actions since the Gulf War. The clear indications about the Emirates’ shift towards serving the American interests are reflected in the financial blow inflicted on Aal Nahyan, namely the collapse of the BCCI in London few years ago, the exposure of Aal Nahyan’s links with the British on the pages of “Al-Shahed Al-Syassi and the Emirate financial support of Algeria, especially after Abdelaziz Bouteflika came to power and her intention to invest two billion dollars in Algeria.
 
6- America has tightened her grip on the most sensitive European institutions after Solana had landed the post of Senior Representative of European Union Foreign and Security Policy. Roman Prudi has also landed the post of President of the European Commission. A united Europe, according to this format, does achieve the aim that America had been working for with regard to European unification. America does not object the establishment of a united Europe; she rather supports such a move. This has been confirmed by Zbigniew Brzezinsky in his book “The Grand Chessboard”, namely that the European unification would serve the stability of the continent. The European unification, with the presence of American dominion over her most sensitive institutions, in addition to NATO, would make the whole continent come under the American hegemony, thus curbing the influence of the conventional powers in Europe, such as France and Britain; this is what America has been endeavouring to achieve. What the United States does not want is for a European unification to occasion a change in the international relations or an impact on the international situation. She has recently protected herself against this by giving NATO a new role in the Balkan War and by generating a host of radical changes to the political life of the European states. America has tilted the scales of powers by elevating certain parties and reducing others and by dominating the European political institutions. She will crown this by curbing the Security Council and activating the role of the Secretary General of the United Nations. What confirms America’s hegemony over the European continent and even reflects the strength of the American influence in Europe, is what the recent parliamentary elections have yielded in some European states and in the European Parliament, as well as the appointment of Solana and Prudi, to head two of the most sensitive European political institutions.

A unified Europe, after all these changes, is not expected to have any effect on the international situation. This would rather consolidate the American position as the sole superpower in the international situation. America’s use of the unified European stance in the international issues will help disguise the ugly face of the American supremacy in the international situation, i.e. the “Uni-polar Policy”. America does not object to allowing the European states to gain some benefit in return for this. Meanwhile, the European states see no harm in supporting the American policy aimed at establishing peace and stability in the world, because this serves the interests of the European companies as well as the interests and investments of America.

28th Thul-Hijjah 1421h
23rd March 2001 
        

www.hizbuttahrir.org