Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Answers to Questions

Question 1

The G8 summit was held on June 9th and 10th 2004. What is the impact of the summit on the Greater Middle East Project, which was tabled as a main issue on the agenda, and why did Egypt and Saudi Arabia refuse to attend. What is the impact of the summit’s progress on the issues of Palestine and Iraq?

Answer:

In order to perceive what happened at the summit it would be imperative to shed light on the nature of the participating countries in their qualities as the concerned parties in the summit, and on the American/European relationships and what America is seeking from the European countries in relation to what helps the progress in her project for the greater Middle East.

As for the US/European relationships, it is imperative to perceive the European situation, even if it were in a general manner, as the majority of the European countries, such as Italy, Portugal and the Eastern European countries, proceed in the orbit of the United States, if not affiliated to her in their foreign policies. As for Britain, she has decided to go along with America and comply with her wishes after she had been banished by America from all of her areas of influence, in order to maintain her interests through the securing of the unilateral leader of the world; this enables Britain to maintain a role that she cherishes, though nominal, in the international situation. Germany and France are the most prominent countries that remain on the scene. Although Germany seems to oppose America in some policies, especially in her war against Iraq, this is however down to the arrangements made by America in order to foil France’s attempts at influencing the European and the international scenes.

As for France, she is assiduously working towards defending her existence as a state that had been not so long ago, and before America succeeded in dominating the international scene unilaterally. Hence, she is attempting to influence the course of international events, even if this were merely by taking a host of stances in the face of America and what she plans for Europe and the world. This became evident during her opposition to the war on Iraq. Despite this, France lacks the requirements and the faculty to hold on to her stances towards America’s plans; she merely content herself with rebellion from time to time, and with inciting other states to stand-up to America’s unilateral dominion, in an attempt to gain a high profile on the international scene. This led to friction that reached the point of estrangement between France and the United States, which peaked when America attempted to procure a Security Council resolution endorsing the invasion of Iraq. the American administration that continues to work towards belittling the role of Europe, aims at preventing France in particular from relying on Europe’s political weight and preventing its threat from influencing the international situation; so far, America has been successful in this endeavour. Meanwhile, France will pursue her attempts to influence the proceedings of international events whenever the opportunity arises, while monitoring her interests and the extent of damage that these attempts may cause as a result of her rebellion against the American wishes.

As for the G8 summit, the United States is working towards exploiting the Europeans with the aim of completing her scheme related to the greater Middle East. The interests of the Europeans in the region are extremely important. Both the Europeans and the Americans agree that the re-emerging and growing Islam constitutes a common threat to them, though it is more of a threat to the Europeans, who do realise that any change in the region would affect them more than the others because of their geographical proximity. America’s exploitation of the Europeans reach the point of attempting to involve Nato, under American command, to execute her project, starting by pressing for the dispatching of Nato troops to Iraq. This may not stop at dragging Nato into undertaking a major security role, designed by America, to monitor the implementation of the required “reforms” and what this may require in terms of interventions in the region, for it has become clear that there exists a role designed by America for Nato, related to the Middle East project. Nicholas Burns was quoted as saying during the Nato meeting In Prague in October 2003: “NATO’s future, we believe, is east, and is south. It’s in the Greater Middle East.” This is why the French objected strongly to the direct intervention of Nato by sending troops to Iraq on America’s request and Iraq’s persistence, under the pretext of protecting the Europeans against the hostile reaction from the people of the region and the negative impact that such intervention may have on the future of their relationship with their neighbours. France is also reluctant to offer any assistance in order to reduce the impact caused by America’s breach of international law and to outline that America was forced to return to the United Nations, which confirms that France had adopted and propagated the right stance on the eve of the war, despite the non-objection of Nato member states, including France and Germany, to a limited role for Nato, related to the greater Middle East project. It is expected that America will succeed in the forthcoming Nato conference in luring Nato into adopting a host of resolutions that would serve what she had planned for.

As for the proposed “reforms” proposed in the greater Middle East project, which America outlined to the G8 summit, it is an extension to the required changes that America aims to achieve and which are directed in essence towards the peoples of the region and not towards its rulers. No sooner America invaded Iraq than she played the card of delivering the masses from the dictatorial rulers, in order to tempt them to accept what America had wanted to occasion in terms of changes, while shrouding those demands with attractive moulds such as freedom, human rights, women and children rights, democracy and modernising education. America has also exploited the fear of the rulers in speeding up the progress in what she had wanted to achieve in terms of reforms. Had she not fallen into a host of fatal errors in Iraq, especially when she dissolved the Iraqi army and security services and when she used excessive force in dealing with the masses once a pattern of resistance against her forces emerged, the changes in the region would have been easier and faster. However, now that the level of fear amongst the rulers has subsided, America is still monitoring their conspicuous execution of what she demands in terms of “reforms”, while giving them the false impression that their thrones are safe, as long as they adhere to the execution of the “reforms” programme upon their subjects. In fact, America wants to drain them and use them to impose what people resent from among those reforms; she specifically makes the young ones from among them believe that she is totally satisfied each time they acted as role models for others in their achievements in the path towards the “reforms”.

As for the differences between the American project and what the Europeans are proposing in the Franco-German project, these are not related to the essence of the “reforms” , but rather to the style of their execution. They all aim at alienating the Muslims from Islam and at pushing the people of the region towards adopting the Western viewpoint towards life and implementing democracy. The American administration had wanted to impose her concepts through intimidation and force whenever necessary in order to achieve her aims in a speedier manner, irrespective of the people of the region’s opinion. As for the Europeans, who are more perceptive of the region’s nature and its people, they want to adopt the style of infiltration, whereby the people of the region would adopt the reforms willingly, and without showing that they are imposed from outside, so that they secure their success, and avoid evoking the wrath of the masses in the region, leading them consequently to categorically reject the reforms. America’s acceptance of this proposal became evident before the convening of the G8 summit.

With regard to the project which the G8 summit agreed to implement, it is a host of measures related to cultural, educational, political and economic domains, aimed at shifting the mainstream public opinion and the political climate at both official and public levels towards endorsing democracy, “tolerance” and women’s rights. They are also aimed at shaping the mentalities, especially among the youth, with the concepts of the Western civilisation, which would guarantee a radical change for the Islamic region, thus consolidating the influence of Kufr in general and the American influence in particular; it would also guarantee the project aimed at making the Jewish state accepted within the region. It would also prevent the rise of any move by the people of the region that leads to breaking free from the shackles of Kufr and its influence, or even to threatening the West and specifically the Europeans, who experienced in the past and for centuries the Muslims’ surge with Islam and their conquest of Europe for hundreds of years.

As for the refusal by Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attend the summit, this is designed to suit their declared stance vis-à-vis the project, namely that these countries had rejected the style in which the American project has been imposed. They have in fact accepted the reforms, but objected to their imposition from abroad. They have not in fact taken any decision against the American interests, because they are incapable of refusing the America’s demands, who has clearly agreed to giving the impression that the reforms had not been imposed on the countries of the region from abroad. This was backed by statements from several US politicians.

As for the rulers of the countries who attended the summit, this was apparently aimed at outlining a vision for the reforms to suit the region and its people and at highlighting the fact that the region is represented when decisions that concern it are taken. In fact, those rulers attended the summit to take instructions related to their roles in the various changes to be implemented and to lead by example with regard to their progress towards achieving these reforms.

As for the Iraqi issue, its presence at the summit was meagre save for America’s request from the Europeans to agree to the Nato forces taking part in restoring stability in Iraq; this was stated by Al-Yawar and France rejected it categorically. It is worth mentioning that the United States, having encountered several obstacles in her plan to turn Iraq into a springboard for her project in the region as a result of her repeated mistakes and erroneous estimations, is proceeding towards occasioning the change in a parallel manner with her progress in Iraq and towards adopting fresh formulas and arranging a host of roles for her agents and collaborators to proceed according to her wishes.

As for the issue of Palestine, the discussions were confined to an invitation to activate the role of the Quartet Committee in order to achieve maximum pressure on the Jews in order to pave the way for Sharon to proceed with his plan to withdraw from Gaza and to deem this move as part of the Roadmap peace plan requirements. The summit was preceded by an instruction to the rulers of the region to emphasise the need to proceed towards settling the Palestinian issue and the need for the Europeans to partake in the peace process, and to outline that the progress in settling this issue is the key to the so called reforms in the Middle East, while stressing that the lack of progress in the Palestinian issue should not affect the execution of the steps already agreed upon and related to change, as if the United States has given the execution of the Middle East project a priority in isolation of the region’s issues, which require time to settle, but without ignoring them.

Question 2

Has America reached a conviction with regard to cancelling the “Greater Middle East” project? Has she retracted in the face of the European pressure and the resentment of the region’s rulers, including her agents? Would the democrats cancel the project if they were to win the elections? Furthermore, with America’s failure up to now in shaping the Iraqi model, would she resort to freezing her plan to change the current regimes in the region?

Answer:

The “Greater Middle East” project has been prepared in order to reshape the vital part of the Islamic world. America’s reshaping of the region represents a significant part of the requirements related to achieving unilateral dominion over the world in the 21st century. Collin Powell was conspicuous when he mentioned that Cheney had outlined the dimensions of the projects at the Davos Summit held last January by saying that the operation aimed at determining the shape of the Islamic world in the 21st century. Hence, the intended aim of this project is to impose the Western way of life upon the Muslims and to concentrate the concepts of the Western culture which have become shaky in their minds, especially now that the influence of the concepts about life in Islam with regard to the state and societal relationships have begun to emerge among the Muslims, who have witnessed with their own eyes the corruption of their countries systems, while the call to resume the Islamic way of life has been banging their ears.

Hence, the project aims at generating a host of cultural changes that suit the American presence in the region in a manner that prevents the emergence of the Islamic civilisation so that it does not turn into a rival to the Western culture under the leadership of America this century, in addition to tightening the iron fist on this strategic region of the world due to its resources, especially oil, which represents the backbone of the economic life in the industrial states, especially Europe and Japan. This will enable America to exert more pressure on those industrial states and send a constant warning against coming close to the red lines and infringe the strategic and vital interests of America.

The European countries share America’s vision with regard to the cultural changes aimed at distancing the concept of the Islamic civilisation and preventing the return of Islam to the realm of life. It was Europe, especially Britain and France, who had spent huge efforts, on the plane of intellectual invasion and then the military one, which as a result, destroyed the Islamic Khilafah at the beginning of the last century, then place the heavy shields in the face of its return, be it through the implementation of Kufr thoughts through their agents or the maintaining of the education policies and curricula, which they had specially designed in order to separate the Islamic religion from life, after they had separated from the state and confined it to the mosque and to personal matters and to whatever does not have any relation to life’s affairs.

Since the substance of the Greater Middle East project is not a matter of dispute between America and the weighty states in Europe, the pressure exerted by France was not aimed at cancelling the substance of the reforms demanded by America, simply because the Europeans had already declared that the American project was adopted from the European project, which had been designed ten years ago. Besides, the Franco-German project is in essence identical to the American project; the difference, as we mentioned in the earlier Answer, is over the style of execution of these reforms.

It is worth mentioning here that the superpowers, or the sole superpower, as is the case today, do not change their ultimate objectives or the main outlines of their policies according to the wishes of the president, or to allow one political party to win the elections. They rather continue to proceed towards achieving those objectives according to the main outlines of their policies, though the president may have a say in choosing the most effective style to proceed towards achieving the intended aims. Hence, achieving the unilateral dominion of the world in the 21st century is an objective that America has been pursuing since the middle of the past century. While struggling against socialism, America worked towards spreading the concept of liberation in order to take from Britain and France their colonies. In the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, America started to spread the notion of the New World Order at the beginning of the nineties, until she reached her current position, reflected in flagrant aggressiveness and eagerness to reshape our region and the rest of the world in order to achieve a dream that has for long been held by America’s leaders, namely to turn the world into a farm run by America.

As for the fact that America has so far failed to achieve the Iraq model, this does not mean that she will remain idle and cease the work according to her project for the region. It is noted that the so called reforms are being implemented in the region at the hands of the rulers, though at various pace. What is occurring in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia and most of the countries of the region, in terms of changes in the laws, the education policies and the institutions of the so called “civil society” and the like is not longer disguised. America had wanted to schedule, organise and speed up the execution of the changes, which are targeting the masses rather than the rulers; the changing of the rulers is merely an incentive and a reward that would be handed over to the masses if they comply, in addition to depleting the energy of those hopefuls who think that America would let them be if they achieved for her what she wants. What America intends from pressing the rulers to proceed in the so called reforms is to pave the way for anchoring the desired status of the societies, as a prelude to the forthcoming team of rulers who would be accepted by the peoples of the region – once America has deceived them - , that is if the Ummah fails to take matters into her own hands. Therefore, the issue is not the rulers and their survival, because America does not lend any weight to the rulers and the leaders of the region; their survival is dependent on how much America needs them to achieve her aims through them. This applies to the young rulers, whose presence remind the masses of their fathers’ past, and to the old ones who remain in power. Perhaps those rulers should not remain hostage to their imaginations even if America were to reproduce some of them anew.

As for the failure of America to build the Iraqi model, there are a host of alternatives in the horizons as well as a number of roles being dished out, which America would rely upon to execute her new project. Newsweek mentioned in her article published on 22nd June, under the title of Egypt: key to the Middle East: “But Egypt, at the centre of the Arab world, has 75 million people and a historical role as the hub of modern Arab culture. "It has a megaphone quality to it," says the same (State Department) official. Without Egypt, no movement toward greater democracy is likely to gather much momentum. With it, the chance for real change grows exponentially.” There are also strong and clear signs of another alternative, namely the Turkish model. America has hailed the ability of the Turkish rulers in combining secularism and Islam. It is no secret that Turkey enjoys a position that enables her to influence the Caucasus region and Central Asia, in addition to the rest of the Arab region, where it has been noted that the new Turkish rulers have been strengthening their relationships with it. Furthermore, Turkey’s candidate has recently won the chairmanship of the OIC, which indicates the presence of deliberate moves aimed at generating for Turkey or Egypt or both of them a number of leading roles in implementing the project with the help of the other American tools such as the Arab League, with America’s persistence to achieve the results expected from the progress of the reforms, even if they were not instant results. According to Newsweek, the State Department official was quoted as saying during his talk about Egypt, "We should have to accept that [reform] is not going to be immediate, but they have to accept that it's inevitable."

7th Jumada Al-Ooolah 1425h

25th June 2004

www.hizbuttahrir.org