“Our armies do not come to your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but
as liberators” the British announced. Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude’s army routed the Iraqi’s,
having entered the country through Basra, before moving swiftly north. Maude’s Anglo-
Indian army had invaded Iraq wanting to ‘free’ its people from their dictators. That was on
March 8th 1917. Mimicking Maude’s lies on March 27th 2003 Bush and Blair also promised
liberation to the people of Iraq at their press conference at Camp David. They followed in
the footsteps of General Sir Edward Allenby who ‘liberated’ Palestine, shortly after Maude
had ‘liberated’ Iraq. Keen not to be left out, the French arrived to ‘emancipate’ Lebanon
and Syria a few years later. It seems then that the west has been ‘liberating’ the Middle
East for years, and this time should be no different. Beneath the veneer of Bush and Blair’s
rhetoric it is important to establish exactly what the current political situation is within the
world at this important juncture and what implications there are for those who seek to
revive Islam.
The vicious attack on Iraq launched by America and Britain on March 20 2003 is
considered as part of the on going war on terrorism initiated after September 11th, which
by all accounts is a war on Islam. This is not a war on Muslims, or even the ideological
aspects of Islam; rather it is a war on political Islam. The West can tolerate the presence
of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world because she realises that for all intents and purposes
the ideological battle has been lost and is not overly concerned about it. She realises there
is little she can do to reverse the status quo in the short or medium terms, though foreign
policy think tanks still consider that strategies in the long run may prove successful.
However what the West is focussed on is the absolute prevention of the emergence of
political Islam in any shape or form. In particular, the West is focussed on preventing the
emergence of the Khilafah state. To prevent the emergence of the Khilafah state the West
is undertaking a number of measures to delay its arrival or to make sure that it is weak.
Before discussing these measures it is important to understand how the world has reached
this point and in particular the Muslim ummah.
After the destruction of the Khilafah, the West implanted a host of independent states in
the heart of the Muslim world. She appointed pro-western rulers to rule the Muslim world
on their behalf by implementing capitalist solutions in all aspects of life. But the sole aim of
these caretaker rulers was to protect the western interests for their masters. This was
achieved by making sure that the ummah was unable to express her Islamic viewpoint in
society. In fact, early on there existed two viewpoints; one in the government, which were
the capitalist viewpoint and the Islamic viewpoint, which largely existed in the masses.
Hence from the onset society in the Muslim countries was polarised be it marginally. As
time progressed this polarisation increased and the Islamic viewpoint amongst the masses
began to assert itself in societal affairs. The rulers viewed this as a threat and dealt with
this resurgence using brute and barbaric force. Sometimes the kafir powers would even
help their agents suppress this resurgence. Eventually, the situation deteriorated to such a
degree that the rulers became increasingly isolated and there was no support for their rule
in the masses. Hence their Western masters exclusively supported them externally. Now
the situation is such that not a single regime can prevent the Islamic point of view
dominating societal matters and the rulers have failed to stem this revival. The situation is
so bad that the western powers have realised that these rulers need to be replaced by
direct rule i.e. physical occupation, a style that was previously used in the late 19th
century and the first half of the 20th century. In other words the battle of ideas has been
lost in the Muslim world and now the battle is political using a variety of means and styles.
It would be foolish to neglect the most obvious US objectives in Iraq, which is to secure
access to her oil reserves and to provide lucrative reconstruction contracts to her
corporations. This is obviously a vital issue for Bush, however, the irrepressible rise of
political Islam around the world, and in the Middle East in particular is causing great
concern in Washington, prompting her to become increasingly paranoid about the potential
of her political vulnerability given her economic and political interest all throughout the
world
In a recent article published in the Washington Post the newspaper found that “Arabs are
increasingly funnelling their frustrations through the politics of Islamic parties…the shift
away from secular nationalism has accelerated in recent years and is evident in the streets
of Baqaa and Jordan’s other refugee camps where symbols of piety have accompanied the
growing prominence of Islamic activists in the teachers union and political organising.”
Later, in the same article it was noted “sentiments heard more and more often across the
Middle East, express thinly veiled disgust at what [Arabs] see as the impotence among the
Arab world’s own rulers in the face of US and Israeli actions…[they consider that] the
leaders have weakened them.”
It is precisely these kinds of sentiments, which cause great concern amongst policy makers
in the Whitehouse. The once politically inert and powerless streets of the Middle East are
now beginning to show signs of life. Cairo, Sanaa in Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and Lebanon
have all witnessed large scale and vociferous protests by Muslims enraged at America’s
bellicose foreign policy. This revival has in part been attributed by some commentators to
the creation of new forums for debate. Much of the Arab press had previously been subject
to heavy censorship. The advent of organisations such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabia satellite
news coupled with internet access means that the Muslims are now able to access
continuous and unrestricted information about the state of the global Islamic Ummah. This
break from state controlled news services has served to elevate the political consciousness
amongst the masses and has focused their discontent on the real problem – the rulers.
The results are clear. In the first Gulf War, America experienced minimal opposition as she
set up camp in Riyadh and bombarded Iraq. This time, her plans have met with
widespread and unusually vocal opposition from a broad cross-section of the Muslim
ummah. The growing sounds of discontent on the Arab and wider Muslim street have
reached such a level that both Washington and the Arab regimes are finding it hard to turn
a deaf ear to them. But why should this have occurred when the West prides itself on the
intellectual superiority of its civilisation. Surely the West should have been able to convince
the Muslims of the justice of its way of life, its modern political systems and advanced
economic system. However what is becoming increasingly clear is that the intellectual
battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims seems to have been lost years ago and the
strategy itself was dealt a fatal blow since the events of 9/11. Western concepts such as
human rights, freedom, democracy, pluralism, international law etc carry little or no
influence amongst the masses.
Take for instance democracy. The West claims it wants to bring democracy to the people of
Iraq through this war. However considering it is prosecuting this war from the soil of
staunch allies who all have dictatorial, oppressive and non representative governments like
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait shows the complete bankruptcy of the American
agenda. The West describes its new protectorate in Afghanistan as being democratic, but
in reality it is made up of its stooges and brutal warlords who are completely
unrepresentative of the people of Afghanistan. Furthermore Muslims see the West shower
praise and billions of dollars on democracies like Israel and India who are run by Jewish
and Hindu fundamentalists who commit nothing short of genocide against the Muslims in
Palestine, Gujarat and Kashmir. In addition Muslims have seen that when so-called Muslim
‘fundamentalists’ achieve power via democratic means like what happened in Algeria they
were removed by force and brutally massacred for years after, an action sanctioned and
approved by the West even to the extent that a recent State Department official
commended Algeria as a model country in terms of its treatment of its citizens. Such
duplicity has led the Muslim masses to reject democracy and even now people in the West
are realising that though they have the ‘process’ of democracy there is no substantive
power for ordinary people. This remains in the control of large corporations, consequently
even the people in the West have begun to reject democracy
And what of freedom?
Over the years the Muslim world has witnessed that whenever they want to express Islam
or live according to Islamic rules, the brutal governments of the Muslim world suppress
them with the full blessing of Western governments. For instance Karimov the darling of
the West and a member of America’s ‘Coalition of the Willing’ has killed thousands of
Muslims- not for voicing Islamic opinions or accounting Karimov, but just for having a
beard and praying – so much for religious freedom
Or at present, the demonstrations that are taking place in the Muslim world for Iraq, are
being brutally muzzled by regimes regarded by US and UK as their coalition partners.
Coalition of the willing more like ‘Coalition of thugs’. The concept of freedom therefore
advocated by the West has therefore been universally derided.
And what of Human rights
For decades the West has ignored the human rights of Muslims. We need not look further
than Palestine and Kashmir. Muslims for years have realised that the West has been more
concerned about the human rights of the rulers of the Muslim world then the masses
facing persecution. For instance the US continues to protect Hamid Karzai, while she
continues to bomb the ordinary people in Afghanistan. Similarly, American agents protect
Musharraf, while at the same time the FBI and US Special Forces are free to kidnap and
torture any Pakistani. So the concept of convincing Muslims of Western human rights is
dead in the Muslim world. Even the secular elite are currently beginning to disown the
West’s intellectual agenda. The only proponents of western civilisation in the Muslim world
are the paid servants working for the regime.
Hence the battle has become political i.e. when will the Islamic point of view take power.
Therefore, the Muslim Ummah today is on a brink of a momentous change. A situation
similar to that which existed in the late 1980’s in the Warsaw pact countries and the Soviet
Union. Then the people in a mass movement embraced capitalism and abandoned
communism. Within a short space of time all the countries fell through a domino effect and
the Soviet Union was dismantled in 1990.
It is interesting to note that the West did not choose to colonise militarily any of these
countries, even though it had the means to do so. Rather the West used existing tools like
the IMF, trade agreements and security pacts to colonise these countries. This is because
the threat posed by communism was no longer considered viable -it was dead. But the
threat posed by Islam is real and is increasing with every minute that goes by. With this in
mind the West has embarked upon a new initiative to fight political Islam. This explains
the US objectives in Iraq and the overall region, the current doctrines advocated on WMD
and the state of the international situation
The US objectives in Iraq
Six years ago a neo-conservative think tank, the ‘Project for the New American Century’
(PNAC) was established. What distinguishes PNAC from other think tanks is the nature of
its founding members, America’s vice-president Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, his chief of
staff, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary
and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan.
In 1998 PNAC pleaded with Bill Clinton to use military force against Iraq and remove
Saddam from power. They wrote, “We urge you to seize the opportunity, and to enunciate
a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies
around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's
regime from power. We urge you to turn your administrations attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power…we believe the US has the authority
under the existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to
protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be
crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz and Perle signed the letter amongst others.
Following Clinton’s refusal to accept their advice they persisted in writing to the former
Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican leader Trent Lott.
Unashamedly they advocated that America “establish and maintain a strong US military
presence in the region and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in
the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power…only the US can lead the
way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his
regime.” They go on to observe the perils of leaving Saddam unchallenged, noting that
“the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the
moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at
hazard…the only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be
able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means
a willingness to undertake military action…in the long term, it means removing Saddam
and his regime from power.”
Hence, it becomes clear that invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power was a longstanding
objective of the current Bush administration. September 11th was not a defining
moment for US policy makers, nor does it represent a turning point in Washington’s
attitude. The Project for the New American Century set up by the men who now surround
Bush said that what America needed was “some kind of catastrophic and catalysing event
– like a new Pearl Harbour.” September 11th provided them with that catastrophic and
catalysing event, and a pretext for carrying out their plans.
Consequently, to maintain her sphere of influence in the region and to ensure that Political
Islam is contained, American policy is in need of a re-think. Her plan to station up to
200,000 troops in Iraq under the auspices of American generals will place her at the heart
of the Middle East. Iraq borders six countries. Its strategic position is unparalleled and
serves as an invaluable watchtower over the entire region. Reliance on the current rulers
in Muslim lands no longer guarantees America her objectives; she therefore believes that it
is only now through direct control that she can ensure that political Islam is contained. It is
not the reconstruction of Iraq that she covets, but the reconstruction of the region under
her direct control. US control over Iraq will allow American troops to react quickly and
decisively to any dynamic threat which challenges her interests.
Stripping Muslim countries of their power (New military doctrine – doctrine of
pre-emption)
The US and her allies have in recent years made significant emphasis on the nonproliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. After September 11th this was formulated
explicitly in the US national security strategy
“Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—nuclear, biological, and chemical—in the
possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges
facing the United States. (...) An effective strategy for countering WMD, including their use
and further proliferation, is an integral component of the National Security Strategy of the
United States of America. As with the war on terrorism, our strategy for homeland
security, and our new concept of deterrence, the U.S. approach to combat WMD represents
a fundamental change from the past. To succeed, we must take full advantage of today’s
opportunities, including the application of new technologies, increased emphasis on
intelligence collection and analysis, the strengthening of alliance relationships, and the
establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries." (US National Security
Strategy 2002)
Indeed the main pretext for the War on Iraq is to strip the latter of its alleged possession
of such weapons of mass destruction. However the argument regarding WMD needs to be
examined as it reveals a clear agenda with respect to the Islamic world that has been
missed by many of the mainstream political commentators.
During the Cold war, NATO’s security doctrine was to seek to develop and maintain huge
arsenals of nuclear weapons so as to deal with the conventional quantitative superiority of
the Soviet Union. She also justified a rejection of a no first use doctrine by arguing that
this would have compromised her ability to deter the Soviet Union from launching an
invasion of NATO countries. After the Soviet Union collapsed NATO continued to justify its
huge arsenal and continued to reject a no first use policy by claiming that in an uncertain
world, such weapons were needed. She also through instruments such as the Non
Proliferation Treaty seeks to ensure that non-proliferation of these weapons does not
occur. However after September 11th this view has formalised into a new US security
doctrine that justifies a pre-emptive attack against any nations that possess WMD’s and
who are considered to be in the US view a ‘rogue state’. Therefore the launch of the attack
against Iraq has been on the basis that Iraq has WMD’s, has used WMD’s in the past and
thirdly that she may either use them in the future directly or indirectly through supplying
them to a political group.
However the debate thus far has been on the merits of whether Iraq has WMD’s or not,
whether inspections were working or not and whether war was the correct method to deal
with Iraqi alleged non-compliance or not. However what ‘the ‘international community’ has
agreed upon is that should Iraq be found in possession of these WMD’s then she has to be
disarmed. This is a key point for us to consider!
The second point is that America intends to strip Iraq of WMD’s and not Saddam, this is an
important point as any post war Iraq will also have to sign up to a WMD free zone, a clear
agenda to completely weaken another important Islamic country within the region. This
gives the complete lie to the propaganda that argues on the one hand that Saddam is the
target and not the people of Iraq. As US military analyst Anthony Cordesman stated, “It is
also dangerous to assume such efforts to develop WMD is only linked to Saddam Hussain
and the Baath elite. Most future Iraqi leaders are likely to have somewhat similar fears and
ambitions in the near term. No Iraqi leader will be able to ignore the efforts of Iran or
Israel or the potential challenge posed by the US and its allies in the Southern Gulf”
So clearly if NATO during the cold war possessed WMD’s to offset a conventional
superiority of their rival, the Muslim world is more than right to develop and proliferate its
own WMD, indeed this is imperative and America clearly recognises this in its aim to strip
Iraq and not Saddam’s regime of WMD. As NATO's refusal to even now reject its no firstuse
policy when there is no threat from the Soviet Union works to reinforce the argument
that every nation who seeks leadership and security needs, is entitled to, and should
acquire nuclear weapons. This clearly indicates the value and prestige attributed to nuclear
weapons and explains why the US seeks to ensure non-nuclear weapon states refrain from
developing their own nuclear arsenals. The precedence of Iraq if not stopped could easily
be used on countries such as Pakistan, Iran and Syria in due course as many of the neo
conservatives have advocated.
Redefining the international situation
The current international situation reveals important fault lines and has caused the post
war consensus surrounding International law and Multilateral institutions to be questioned.
France and Russia on one side have sought to constrain America, the world’s only
remaining superpower by advocating a tough approach that it uses the UN Security Council
before important decisions. However the current US administration has determined that
she will not be constrained by such multilateral institutions and has decided that when her
interests are considered vital she reserves the right to act on a unilateral basis. Britain
though publicly backing America has privately and through its political medium sought to
constrain the Bush administration and even now seeks to get a defined UN role in any post
Iraq reconstruction. However these differences should be seen in the context that the
major powers are fundamentally disagreeing on the ‘how’ and not the ‘what’, though they
compete for the spoils of the ‘what’. So they do not disagree on the ideological level, but
disagree on how decisions should be arrived at (multilaterally vs. unilaterally) and also on
who should get the spoils. However the Western world is united in its aims against Political
Islam. However, western nations differ in the means by which to do so. In particular the
West seeks to eliminate any potential or sign of political Islam within the Muslim world. For
the west those advocating a return to political Islam are labelled terrorists, fanatics and
fundamentalists. In short anyone who sees Islam playing an active part in life’s affairs is
considered a target. As one commentator, Daniel Pipes said
“Fundamentalists may be defined, most simply, as those Muslims who agree with the
slogan: ‘Islam is the solution.’”
Willy Claes, the former NATO secretary general and European politician, articulated the
basis of much of Western policy over the past few years. He said
“Muslim fundamentalism is at least as dangerous as Communism once was... It represents
terrorism, religious fanaticism”
The USA has sought a unilateralist approach with the direct occupation of Islamic lands in
Afghanistan and now Iraq to prevent the possibility of an independent Islamic State
arising. Within the European establishment its contempt and hatred for Muslims and Islam
is no less. British and French authorities were preparing for resurgence in Islamic feeling
amongst Muslims as early as the 1970’s when western inspired solutions such as
nationalism had failed. The former British Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia, James
Craig said:
‘'One theory put to me in Beirut was that, since Arab nationalism has manifestly failed,
people are turning to the alternative of Islamic nationalism,’ 'I argued that this, too, had
failed - indeed, it failed long ago. The reply was that the very length of time which had
passed since this failure made it possible to consider giving it a second trial run.'
European commentators have criticised Islam for its inherent incompatibility with Western
civilisation and castigated Muslims for adopting ‘political Islam’. The Intellectual
Conservative magazine on 21st March reported
Euro-Muslims are spreading the 'Truth' of Islam. But, it's not just 'Islam'. It's a
revolutionary, highly political and missionary Islam…. Jihadist Islam is exerting its
influence in Europe, and on European foreign policy. Combined fear of terrorism at home,
the consequences of war, cultural confusion, and the fifth column of Islamists within, is
leading France and others in Europe inextricably toward neutrality and "Franco-
Islamicisation."."
Europeans were the main colonisers of the Islamic world for centuries and their methods
were brutal and oppressive. They fully realise that the emergence of Political Islam will
eliminate their presence and hegemony from the Muslim world.
The Intellectual Conservative further mentioned
… they are susceptible to the plague of Jihadist Islam. Islam started as an Arab imperialist
movement, and at its core aspires to world domination. Unlike the Judeo-Christian created
western democratic paradigm -- live and let live -- Jihadist Islam, like the 'old time
religion' Communism, is totalitarian and missionary in nature
The British government has targeted Political Islam through a more subtle approach by
equating those calling for it with the worst excesses of Islamic history. Mike O’Brien
Foreign Office Minister said in November 2002
The Kharijites were politically extremist, intolerant of others, living on the outside of
civilisation, using terrorism against their enemies and regarded as heretics by the vast
majority of Muslims. They were murderers on a large scale for political objectives, claiming
Islam as their cause. The similarities with modern Al Qa'ida are striking. Both groups exist
on the fringes of Islam, misappropriating and misrepresenting its doctrine and bending it
to the cause of violence. The Kharijites had to be isolated and defeated in order to allow
mainstream Islam to survive. So too today must Al Qaida be isolated and defeated.
Other European approaches in targeting Political Islam have been for European politicians
to call for Islam to undergo a ‘Reformation’ or ‘Enlightenment’. Pim Fortuyn the murdered
far right Dutch politician called Islam ‘a backward culture’ and urged a reformation for
Muslims. Silvio Berlusconi stated on 26/9/2001;
‘The West will continue to conquer peoples, like it conquered Communism (even if it means
a confrontation) with another civilization, the Islamic one, stuck where it was 1400 years
ago’
Also President Putin of Russia has often warned about the threat of a caliphate being
established which will threaten the major powers economic and political interests.
Therefore it is clear that a combination of multilateral or unilateral policies will be
implemented to stop the resurgence of Political Islam. We should not kid ourselves
thinking Russia or France do not have the same agenda to prevent Political Islam rising,
however their means will be in many cases different.
However the key point is this, America’s decision to invade Iraq has clearly thrown the
post war consensus of International Law, the sacred sovereignty of nation states and the
need for multilateral institutions such as the UN into the dustbin of history. This gives the
incoming Khilafah state a unique set of foreign policy opportunities and a potentially
historical set of circumstances. It can engage in unilateral actions in the foreign policy
sphere, no longer concerning itself with the so-called international law advocated by
institutions like the UN. Consequently liberating Palestine, unifying Muslim countries and
conquering other nations, actions whose basis emanates from the divine texts can now be
justified and presented as acts of liberation, of acting in the national interest and of
engaging in pre-emptive actions using the precedent of America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Conclusion
• The Khilafah is for all practical purposes established; all that remains is the
physical manifestation. Whether America remains occupying Baghdad or not, the
Islamic revival will have gained an unstoppable momentum. The crusaders having
overcome Baghdad means the Muslim masses will be at the zenith of their anger
and will also demand that their rulers and armies fight like the small band of
Muslims who fought heroically at Umm Qasr, Basra, Najaf and Nassiriyah. Either
way the rulers are fatally wounded.
• The new Khilafah state will be intellectually stronger than all states in the world as
the intellectual basis behind Capitalism has now been destroyed. Any western
attacks on a future Khilafah state on the basis of it having a lack of freedom and
democracy will be absolutely discredited and not worth the paper they are written
on.
• The Khilafah’s future foreign policy has become infinitely easier through the events
of the last few months. All that remains is how it manoeuvres to survive, expand
and become the leading state in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment