The American president is currently on a tour of Europe where he visited Germany yesterday on 23/2/2005 during which he met Schroeder, the German chancellor. Before that on 21-22/2/2005 he visited the NATO headquarters in Brussels, where he met up with some of the European leaders, especially Chirac and Blair, and gave a speech in the Concert Noble Ballroom in the heart of Brussels on 21/2/2005 where he announced that the alliance between Europe and America represents the cornerstone for joint security in the new century. He also attended the NATO summit on 22/2/2005 where he said: ‘The time has come to leave American and European differences especially about Iraq and look for working hand in hand.’
To understand the motivation, timing and objective behind this visit we need to go back a few years:
After the collapse and demise of the Soviet Union, America took a unilateral approach in international politics and began to behave as if it were the only player that controls affairs. At the period of Bush (the son) and the neo-cons, she has come to a point where she made fun of her former allies by calling them ‘old Europe’ and doing away with the UN when it does not pass the resolutions that suit her. This is despite the fact that it was America that was behind the setting up of the UN and the Security Council to give cover for her conspiracies with international backing. This became apparent shortly before her aggression against Iraq, where she did not care about the votes against her even of those that had been her supporters and allies. Self-delusion overtook her and she started to give no account to any state or superpower let alone those who are less than that.
However, the fact of the matter is that America is now drowning in the quagmire of her aggression against the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq. This can be seen from the number of American soldiers that have been killed especially in Iraq; her failure in policy and war; the lack of support for her in Iraq from France, Germany and then Spain after withdrawing her troops; the exposing of her horrible treatment of prisoners and captives of war; her dirty war against civilians, women, children and the elderly; the weakness of her troops in the frontlines despite her superior weaponry and the break up of her former allies due to the haughtiness of her behaviour in international affaires. All of this has forced her to review her international stance and her military delusions and to look again to Europe, to please Europe and grant her more scope in international politics, especially in the Middle East. America is doing this hoping that Europe will help her and rescue her from her predicament or make it easier for her.
As for Europe, she has realised that America has fallen in the quagmire of her aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq and she realises the severity of America’s predicament in the region. She did not stand still waiting to be given a role; rather she has begun to compete with America in international politics, especially in the Middle East, exploiting America’s preoccupation in the quagmire, especially in Iraq. The struggle in the region has taken another direction, reminiscent of the multi-polarity which dominated international politics before Britain’s withdrawal from Suez in the 1970’s and the situation afterwards during the cold war before the beginning of the 1990’s. The European states; France, Germany and Spain after Aznar, i.e. during the rule of the current socialist party, have begun to openly compete with America politically, along with Britain who is competing with America discretely using her well known political cunning. These states have succeeded in forcing America - in a number of issues in the region - to react to circumstances instead of dictating them as she has become used to.
Here are some examples of the issues in which they have forced America to react:
They competed with America regarding the Darfur issue where America had preserved her influence in the north and south of Sudan. America wants to resolve the problem of the south and then move to Darfur as mentioned in the statement of the American Charge D’affaires in Sudan, Gerald Kallochi, in the middle of May 2004, because she takes the view that inciting problems all at once will encourage the collapse of the current government in Sudan which is loyal to her. This would pave the way for the collapse of the regime, and thus the path will be open for Europe ( Britain and France) to come in. However, Britain and France took the view that mobilising the Darfur issue in a period when America is preoccupied with the problem of the south will provide them a foothold in Sudan after America had stopped them from participating in the settlement of the problem of the south.
Indeed, this is what has happened; London has thus become an active media centre regarding the issue of Darfur, inflaming the regional and international public opinion, and Paris has become the centre for financial support for the rebels via Chad.
In this way, both nations have imposed the Darfur issue on America before the timing she had set herself, which forced her to engage with it before the end of the problem of the south. This made the government of Sudan accept the truce with British-backed forces in Sudan, and even conclude agreements with them, as happened with Hizb al-Ummah. At the same time they compelled America to proceed in the Darfur issue internationally and regionally until she accepted the signing of the final agreement between Sudan and the rebel Garang in Nairobi on 9/1/2005.
Europe vied with America in North Africa as well. Thus, after Boumedienne’s coup against Ibn Billah in Algeria and the death of the Muhammad V in Morocco, America was thrown out of Algeria and Morocco. She then managed to exploit the Western Sahara issue via the Polisario Front . She took this issue as a way to enter North Africa. She issued one resolution after another from the UN under the guise of self-determination and referendum. Then the third solution was presented; this was for self-rule and followed by a referendum after five years and self-determination. She used to hold the strings of the issue and control its incitement or pacification according to the requirements of her influence in Morocco and Algeria. She was helped in this by Spain during the term of Aznar. When the situation changed and the socialist party came to power, Spain and France worked to take this issue out of the hands of America. French state officials began to state publicly that the Western Sahara is a means for America to enter North Africa, which was mentioned during Chirac’s swift visit to congratulate Bouteflika when he won the presidential elections in April 2004. Then the efforts of France and Spain were repeated; the last time this happened was during the visit of the King of Spain to Morocco on 17/1/2005, where this was the main objective of the visit. Through this approach, they competed with America in an effective manner, which is still continuing today.
They also vied with America in Lebanon. Since the (conference of) Ta aif , America has been the power behind the current regime in Lebanon. It is the pillar of America in the region and the Syrian army is the guarantor for the continuation of this regime. America’s plan dictates the withdrawal of the Syrian army in stages according to the stages of the settlement which will be concluded in the region.
France (as well as Britain behind the scenes) took the view that America’s fall into the quagmire of her aggression against Iraq would provide an opportunity to raise the issue of the expulsion of the Syrian army. She pushed matters in the direction of the Security Council after her agents in Lebanon prepared the climate towards expelling the Syrian army. This made America go along with the Security Council and enter into a plan with France, thus passing the resolution 1559 in both of their names. America was able to make the resolution vague, thus insuring that a period of 6 months delay was given to Kofi Annan to present a report to the Security Council regarding its execution. Then she followed this up by mobilising the supporters of Syria in the country, thus they included the Taaif resolution in the way of the Security Council resolution and the two became mixed up. So France (and Britain behind it) realised that America was able to make this resolution ineffective, especially since the elections coming in Lebanon will select the supporters of the regime in Lebanon and in Syria and the resolution 1559 would be dead and the alternative will be the Taaif agreement. Thus matters will go back as before: redeployment and partial withdrawal done gradually until the settlement becomes ready in the region, especially on the Syrian track.
In this circumstance, the assassination has come as a saviour for France and her followers, and for Britain and its followers, to drive the resolution again and even cut the way towards the elections. The whole of Europe has come out publicly in the field. France used to blatantly challenge to the point that Chirac took up the issue regarding the assassination of al-Hariri more than the family of al-Hariri. Britain began to distort and spread rumours as is its way, by raising doubts that Syria was behind the incident as mentioned by Straw, the British foreign minister. Britain’s agents have come blatantly to the fore on the side of the agents of France, both united in service to Europe, to expel the American influence from Lebanon, which will be succeeded by Europe in the name of France and Britain.
The matter became confused and the stance of Syria and her followers locally and regionally became difficult as they stood accused. It is very unlikely that Syria would commit this crime because the assassination goes against the interests of Syria, even her very existence. The international situation was also an embarrassment to America. Besides, Europe’s vying with America was successful to the extent that America found no way out except to go along with the expulsion of the Syrian army the same as she did in resolution 1559. What America wanted with that was to insure that Europe did not hold all the strings to the issue where it can do whatever it wanted. She rather wanted to go along with Europe so as to overturn the course that insists on expelling the Syrian army and overthrowing the regime to expelling it on stages and to stabilize the regime.
It seems America’s outbidding of Europe regarding the expulsion of the Syrian army has succeeded. It was announced yesterday (22/2/2005) that Mubarak (a man who carries out American tasks) sent his director of intelligence to Damascus, which indicates that America has handed over the task to Mubarak to move the issue from being an international issue to an issue which is domestic i.e. an Arab issue. So the way out aims protect the regime in Lebanon and provide a suitable course for the redeployment and gradual withdrawal of the Syrian army. This serves to show that this course of action is not a surrender to the movements and agents of Europe; it is rather in compliance with the Taaif (conference), the Arab summit, a request from the Lebanese government or in compliance with a statement from the Syrian president regarding the issue, as alluded to by the Egyptian president in his statements to the press yesterday. Thus, America is on the verge of pulling the carpet from under the feet of Europe.
In this way Europe has vied openly with America in Lebanon using the fact that America has fallen into the quagmire of its aggression against Iraq and made her resort to reacting whilst in the past she used make others react.
The depth of the quagmire and the severity of Europe’s rivalry with America, especially in the Middle East, made America take the view that the policy of unilateralism in international politics has failed or is on the verge of failing, and that distancing Europe from participating in international politics is no longer possible. The option of insuring the failure of any state that wishes to vie with America has been proved unachievable. Thus, it was decided that the superficial haughtiness of America should decrease and it would be better for her to allow Europe to participate so that her problems may decrease.
However, there is another issue which has made compromise with Europe even more pressing. In fear of this matter she is preparing special conferences, research centres and expecting this fear to materialise before long. This fear is the establishment of the Khilafah. She does not want this to happen while she has so many enemies and so few friends. All of this has made her draw closer to Europe.
Due to this she has started a campaign of compromise with Europe, especially the states which were publicly opposing her. She has begun her campaign with hastened steps, through tours undertaken by the foreign secretary, defence secretary and recently by Bush:
The foreign secretary Condoleezza Rice undertook a tour of Europe which began on the evening of Thursday 3/2/2005, it was full of statements and hints that America is extending her hand to Europe and wants Europe to be a partner in international politics, and not one which is ignored or subservient.
Rice gave a speech in Paris on 8/2/2005 in front of the Institute of Political Science reminding everyone of the common values and roots of their civilisation which unite Europe and America. She proposed a plan of action between them in the name of ‘the new partnership’. She said, ‘The time has come to turn the page of past differences and begin to forge a new chapter in our relations and alliances…’ She also stressed, ‘My country is ready to work with Europe on a joint agenda.’ It was Rice, the National Security Adviser, who not long ago demanded that France be punished for leading the states which opposed the war but now she is asking Europe, especially France, to work together in a new partnership!
As for Rumsfeld, he gave a speech on 12/2/2005 before the International Conference for Security in Munich and reiterated what Rice said about common values and cultural roots. He began in the American style which has become well known in the world, where he opened with a witty remark or a joke saying now that he is not ‘the old Rumsfeld’ which is an implicit apology for describing France and Germany as ‘old Europe’ when they opposed the American aggression on Iraq. Then he added, ‘The differences over Iraq are over, now we must leave the past behind us,’ alluding to his hot argument with the German foreign minister during a meeting in a previous conference two years ago. After that he said, ‘A nation on its own cannot undertake the new challenges of our age,’ forgetting that it was he who said before the war of Iraq that America can fight alone on both fronts.
Then we have Bush’s tour which he began in Brussels on 21/2/2005. His tour was preceded by the comment, ‘The time has come to leave behind the American and European differences especially about Iraq and to look forward for working hand in hand.’
He began his tour with a speech in the Concert Noble Ballroom in the heart of Brussels where he emphasised the beginning of a new age of transatlantic relationships. He announced that the alliance between Europe and North America - which he said will never be split by any power in the world - will represent the cornerstone of joint security in the next century. Then he attended a business dinner to which he was invited by Chirac in the residence of the American ambassador in Brussels. He encouraged the building of the European Union and affirmed that unity via alliances and common values will not make us fear Europe as a strong partner. Bush said this while only yesterday he was trying to intervene in the European Union via the contentions undertaken by the American administration before the aggression on Iraq.
In his meeting with Schroeder, the German chancellor, Bush repeated his statement about joint cooperative action to preserve the climate of friendship between Europe and America. Then he did something which drew everyone’s attention when he stressed to the German chancellor that he will stop using the expression ‘NATO under the leadership of the US’ which used to be used by his father. This showed the Germans that Bush - the son - had resolved to continue rapprochement with Germany and to strengthen the alliance on the principle of equal partnership.
It is clear from the above that the aim of Bush’s tour and the previous tours of the foreign secretary and the defence secretary is to compromise with Europe under pressure of the burden of the quagmire of its aggression against Muslim lands, Europe’s exploiting of America’s fall in this quagmire and her vying with America in the region. She also realised that her throne of unilateralism in international politics has been shaken. She also became aware of the danger of the realization of her fears regarding the establishment of the Khilafah at a time when America is surrounded by many enemies.
The tyrant forces have begun to retreat, worms are sapping their forces, and their weakness has become exposed. They have become convinced before others that their haughtiness will not avail them anything before the Truth. Furthermore, even though they have much by way of weaponry they lack men of courage and resolve to face the armies of Islam.
America has failed in her plan to control the affairs of the world. Her attempts with Europe will not avail her anything, for her tyranny and hatred of that which she described as ‘old Europe’ has reached a point which cannot easily be erased from the minds. The capitalist ideology which these people profess will prevent her from seeing any justice or goodness unless it involves the exploiting other people and looking down on them. Such people that carry such an ideology carry with them their death wherever they reside.
The world is about to renew itself. The Persians and the Romans used to struggle against each other and they were characterised by injustice and tyranny even on their own citizens. They were in a darkness which could not be lifted except by the light of Islam, which swept over the territory of Persia and most of the territory of Byzantium within a few years, and it exposed the false pride which used to cover the weak bodies of the Persians and the Romans.
O Muslims, today you are qualified to remove this false pride covering the bodies of the states known today as superpowers, and to lead the world again and spread the goodness in all of its corners.
You are able to do this due to your great Deen al-Islam, your men whose hearts are filled with Imaan and your abundant resources.
You have the ability if you support the cause of Allah and His Messenger; establish the Khilafah, and return as one Ummah in one state under the shade of one banner.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is not speaking from its imagination; rather the numerous facts speak for themselves:
We have a promise from Allah (swt) to grant us succession to the earth:
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ
‘Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that he will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the land, as He granted to those before them.’ [Sura Noor: 55]
We have the glad tiding of the Messenger of Allah (saw) of the return of the Khilafah Rashidah after its demise:
« ... ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة »
‘…and then there will be a Khilafah on the way of the Prophethood.’ Reported by Ahmad in his Musnad.
We have an Ummah which yearns day and night to see the Khilafah, which she views as her saviour from all her misfortunes.
We have a sincere and true party, by Allah’s Leave, whose shabab are working day and night to realise this objective, without any slack or slumber and fearing none for the sake of Allah (swt).
And there are (super) states whose power is so quickly shrinking, it is as if they had fallen from the sky and the birds snatched them or the wind had blown them to a far-off place.
Do these not point to a close dawn ?
إن في هذا لبلاغاً لقوم عابدين
‘Lo! There is a plain statement for folk who are devout’. [TMQ 21: 106]