KMAG FEB 2010:Kmag template201x269American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid...

O you who believe, respond to the call of Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to that which would give you life...

SAFAR - RABI AL-AWAAL 1431 ··· FEBRUARY 2010 ··· ISSUE: 10

YEMEN: THE NEXT PIECE OF THE COLONIAL JIGSAW - AFTER HAITI’SEARTHQUAKE, WHAT WILL CHANGE? - BRITAIN’S NEOCONS - THEPROPHETS OF ALLAH (SWT) IN THE QURAN - FROM COPENHAGEN TOBROKENHAGEN – SO WHO WILL SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT? - APOLITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RECENT IRAQI OIL AUCTION

Yemen:The Next Piece of the

Colonial JigsawThe Next Piece of the

Colonial Jigsaw

Yemen:

NEWSBITES

2 :: Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010 www.khilafah.eu

“BROKEN BRITAIN”David Cameron is highlighting Britain's“broken society” as an election issue. TheTory leader cited recent research that“among the richest countries, it’s themore unequal ones that do worseaccording to almost every quality of lifeindicator”.

Among 21 developed countries, theGuardian found Britain does worst onchild wellbeing and badly on teenagebirths, imprisonment, drug abuse, trust,obesity, social mobility and mental illness.A government commissioned study – AnAnatomy of Economic Inequality in theUK – described a nation in which therichest 10% are more than 100 times aswealthy as the poorest 10%. The key issueis that the politicians perpetuate andsupport fully the system, values and wayof life that underpins this rapidlydeclining society. Dare suggest that analternative ideology or belief system canlead to greater fairness and cohesion andwatch the sparks fly. At least the Muslimsare now getting into this debate, after allvilification of Islam and Muslims couldhardly be at a higher level.

VEILED THREATSA French parliamentary commission hascalled for a ban of the wearing of the faceveil (niqab and burqa) on the groundsthat they threaten France’s republicanvalues of secularism and equality. Not onlyto be banned in public places but veilwearers or others that displays outwardsigns of “radical religious practice” shouldbe refused citizenship and access topublic services. British opportunist partiessuch as the UK Independence party aremaking similar demands in the UK.Isn’t is perverse that in societies thatpride themselves on unbridled freedomsto wear or believe in whatever you like,

that such basic rights are to be deniedMuslims. One might think that this ismere pandering to extreme right wingelements, but Muslims living in Europeare wondering what will be next.

DRONE ATTACKS KILL 700Its estimated that the US killed at least700 civilians in Pakistani Drone strikes in2009.

While the number of “targets” hit isestimated at 5, both numbers areunverified. Barack Obama promised therewould be a dramatic escalation of theaerial bombardment of Pakistan’s tribalareas and didn’t disappoint the neo-consthat endorse such butchery. On June 22,the US struck at a house in Waziristan thatofficials called a “suspected militanthideout” burying several locals inside.When others rushed to the scene torescue them, they launched anothermissile, killing 13 innocent Pakistanis.When they held a funeral procession onJune 23, the US hit that too on theassumption that Baitullah Mehsud “might”be amongst the mourners. The sanctity oflife is a key issue for all right thinkingpeople, can you imagine the outrage thefollowing report might engender: “US Lawenforcement officers expressedsatisfaction at the assumed killing of a keytarget in downtown Manhattan. Theapartment building in a fashionabledistrict in which he was hiding wassuccessfully leveled, no one knows howmany civilian casualties resulted.”

France accuses US of occupying Haiti France accused the US of “occupying”Haiti in mid January, as thousands ofAmerican troops flooded into the countryto take charge of aid efforts and security.The French minister in charge ofhumanitarian relief called on the UN to

“clarify” the American role amid claimsthe military buildup was hampering aidefforts. Alain Joyandet admitted he hadbeen involved in a scuffle with a UScommander in the airport's control towerover the flight plan for a Frenchevacuation flight. “This is about helpingHaiti, not about occupying Haiti”, MrJoyandet said. Geneva-based charityMedecins Sans Frontieres backed his callssaying hundreds of lives were being put atrisk as planes carrying vital medicalsupplies were turned away by Americanair traffic controllers. But US commandersinsisted their forces' focus was onhumanitarian work and later to prioritiseaid arrivals to the airport over militaryflights, after the intervention of the UN.

BLIAR’S WARAmidst great fanfare and hype Tony Blairtook to centre stage at the Chilcotenquiry into the Iraqi invasion on the29th of January. The Chilcot enquiry hasbeen widely criticized as a gentlediscussion shop with little in the way ofinciteful or probing enquiry and evenweaker cross-examining of the witnesses.One commentator described thequestions put to Blair as being as cuttingas a month old lettuce.

It is not really a surprise that Blair couldeasily brush aside his questioners. In hisopening address to the enquiry LordChilcot set out the terms of the enquiryincluding that no one would be foundguilty and the enquiry was all about“learning lessons”. There is ampleevidence of the illegality of Blair andBush’s war, yet the closest Blair will evercome to being behind bars is the effigy ofhim held up by the many protestors heldin a mock prison outside the enquiry.

On January 28th several world leadersgathered in London to plan their nextsteps in the failed campaign inAfghanistan. While the drums of war havestarted beating over Yemen (the subject ofour feature article this issue), the latestAfghani surge is still to be implementedand the chaos of Iraq is hardly settled.Muslims take no solace in the failure ofthese appalling military adventures,particularly as a key objective of them isto dampen and destroy the path forwardto the re-establishment of the Caliphatethroughout the Muslim world. Yet witheach desperate attempt to subdue Muslimcountries to their “secular, liberal,democratic” straightjacket, Muslimscontinue to defy these crude plans forpushing Islam to the margins. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain this month have launched areport coinciding with the AfghanistanLondon conference, entitled “Afghanistan& Pakistan: the Unwinnable War” the fullreport can be downloaded from: http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/reports/report-afghanistan-&-pakistan-the-unwinnable-war.html

The following is from the executivesummary of the report:

A major sign of incompetence is a personwho does the same thing over and overagain while each time expecting differentresults. President Barack Obama andPrime Minister Gordon Brown seem to betrapped in such an illusion. In 2001, whenWestern leaders ordered the invasion ofAfghanistan, they set out their objectivesfor its occupation. They talked of bringingpeace to the region, establishing agovernment which is accountable,promoting economic and industrialdevelopment, ending the opium trade andsecuring the rights of the Afghan people.

At the end of the decade, the West hasbeen unable to deliver in Afghanistan.

Instead, the people of Afghanistan havebeen subjected to a brutal occupation,thousands of civilians have been killedand many Afghans have witnessedfirsthand the West’s empty promises of‘freedom’ and ‘human rights’ whendetained and tortured in Bagram andKandahar. The Karzai regime, thoroughlydiscredited by ineptitude, corruption anddealings with brutal warlords, continuesto be propped up by both London andWashington. The opium trade is boomingand politicians with close ties to the Westare alleged to be wrapped up in it. Thereis no economic or industrial developmentand despite pledges of billions of dollarsin aid, there is little evidence of therebuilding of Afghanistan that waspromised.

After eight years the West has lost anyform of moral authority to continue itsoccupation and its support of the widelydiscredited Karzai regime. There is nocogent reason to believe that they wouldeven begin to make progress givenanother eight years. The neo-colonialmission in Afghanistan has failed. The Westand its client regime in Kabul have nolegitimacy or credibility in the eyes of theAfghan people or wider Muslim world.This eight year long folly must now cometo an end.

Although it was their warmongeringpredecessors who launched the Afghanwar, both Obama and Brown havedecided to double down and havedevoted more resources in a vain attemptto “finish the job.” But with no coherentstrategy, an excess use of violent tacticscoupled with gross incompetence, NATOrule has led to Afghanistan beingcontrolled by drug barons and corruptofficials. Far from being able to defeat Al-Qaeda or the Taliban in Afghanistan, thewar will cause more resentment andhatred especially in the Muslim world

where the West’s reputation is already intatters perpetuating instability and chaos.Yet after the defeat in Iraq, the continuedfailure in Afghanistan and being fullyexposed under the war on terror, Obamaand Brown are now engaged in an“undeclared” war in Pakistan to destabiliseyet another country in the Muslim world.Though the overt neo-conservativeagenda may have ended with the previousUS administration, its spirit lives on withactive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan andnow undeclared wars in Pakistan, Yemenand Somalia. There is little doubt that thelatest strategy articulated by the presidentof the United States in his West Pointspeech of 1st December 2009, like all theprevious strategies conducted sinceOctober 2001, will fail and thatAfghanistan will continue to suffer as anation and as a people.

This is because these strategies were notjust hopelessly executed, but hopelesslyconceived. The analysis of Western warstrategists is that the Afghan war has beenunder resourced due to the war in Iraqand this explains the resurgence of theTaliban. The proponents of the newstrategy believe that the lack of troopshas led the people of Afghanistan to loseconfidence in NATO’s ability to providegreater security, a pre-requisite foreffective governance. Lacking economicopportunities, ordinary Afghanis inparticular the Pashtuns, effectivelychannelled their frustrations throughjoining the Taliban as the latter providedboth salaries and status. Due to theperception that the central Afghangovernment was corrupt, these peopleturned to violence against NATO, seeingthem as defenders of a corrupt status quo,to drain the swamp of radicalism thesupporters of the new strategy believethat the US should increase troops in theshort term and peel off those who are nothard core ideologues in the insurgency. Byregaining momentum, the West believesthey can then build up Afghanistan’sindigenous security forces to take overfrom NATO at some undefined futuredate. However, to ensure this strategyworks effectively Pakistan must also befixed through a mix of getting thePakistanis to do more and escalatingcovert US military action.�

Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010 :: 3www.khilafah.eu

Editorial

In the aftermath of the alleged failedterror plot to target a US airlinerinvolving the Nigerian born UmarFarouk Abdul Mutallab the finger ofblame has most surprisingly beenpointed at Yemen. Up until now theworld had become used to Americanand British government rhetoricblaming ‘terrorists’ based in theAfghanistan-Pakistan border region atevery opportunity.

Prior to this alleged incident the recentattack at the Fort Hood base was alsotied to Yemen. On this occasion it againseems that it is Yemen’s turn. BritishPrime Minster Gordon Brownannounced the holding of a ‘Yemenconference’ alongside his Afghanistanconference which was held on January27th to discuss the ‘radicalisation’problem inside Yemen, declaring “I havesaid before that Yemen - as both an

incubator and potential safe haven forterrorism - presents a regional andglobal threat.” Barack Obama, theAmerican President and Nobel Prizewinner for ‘Peace’ also indicated thatAmerican airstrikes and Special Forcesoperations are also on the cards citingthat ‘Al Qaeda’ was behind the attack.Senator Joseph Lieberman, a notoriousadvocate of the Iraq war, also weighedin saying “Somebody in our government

4 :: Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010

YEMEN:The Next Piece ofthe Colonial Jigsaw

Atif Salahuddin

www.khilafah.eu

said to me in Sana'a, the capital ofYemen, Iraq was yesterday's war.Afghanistan is today's war. If we don'tact preemptively, Yemen will betomorrow's war."

It seems incredible that in such a shortspace of time since the Christmas dayincident international conferences werebeing planned with the prospects ofWestern military action inside anothersovereign Muslim country. What shouldbe in the first instance a lawenforcement and preventionpredicament has already been propelledto the top of world politics.

This situation seems even more bizarrewhen one considers the fact that thealleged bomber’s own father, allegedlyconcerned about his son’s behavior andintent, reported him to the US embassyin Nigeria in November 2009 and wason a US suspect watch list; Obamaadmitted as much when he said that USintelligence had enough information touncover the plot but “failed to connectthose dots.” British intelligence alsoknew about his alleged involvement forthree years. The American government’sversion of events that the US securityand intelligence agencies, despite all theupheaval they went through in theaftermath of September 11, are stillincompetent enough to have allowedAbdul Mutallab on a flight to the US

despite knowing all that they did abouthim is an outlandish story to believe.Yet despite this apparent new‘intelligence failure’, America andBritain still have enough faith in theirsecurity and intelligence services topinpoint the perpetrators as beingbased in Yemen and are now preparedto attack another Muslim country in theprocess.

Unfortunately this Western version ofevents is unbelievably all too familiar.The world was repeatedly told by the

American and British governments thatIraq had weapons of mass destruction,ready to be used within 45 minutes andthe world was witness to whatsubsequently happened there. It doesnot matter whether any credibleevidence has been presented or not,whether there has been any legalprocess of any kind, or whether suchevidence presented has undergonerigorous scrutiny in a court of lawgiven that thousands if not millions ofhuman lives are potentially at stake.Instead what we see repeatedly isWestern governments acting as thejudge, jury and executioner all rolledinto one; they expect the rest of theworld to accept at face value whateverthey proclaim. Even the inherentlyloaded and token rubber stamp of theUN Security Council has beendispensed with.

To concoct a story, a ruse, has simplybecome a rite of passage for theAmerican and British governments as apublic relations prelude to launchinghostilities as they press on with theirneo-colonial war inside the Muslimworld. Former British Prime MinisterTony Blair said as much when in arecent interview he declared thatfinding WMDs inside Iraq was ‘notimportant’, saying “I mean obviouslyyou would have had to use and deploydifferent arguments, about the nature of

the threat”. Not only is such behaviorcompletely illustrative of Westernforeign policy skullduggery, it is amoraland hypocrisy of the highest order asthey violate all known norms. Thesesame Western powers held theNuremberg trials in the aftermath ofWorld War Two where they convictedand executed many of Hitler’s Germanaccomplices for launching what theydeemed were illegal wars of aggression.For the likes of the British andAmerican governments theirabominable colonial values justify and

govern their evil intent and behaviour.

In the case of Yemen the truth is thatthe Americans have already been veryactive inside Yemen as early as 2002.More recently America has also beencovertly helping the regime to putdown a rebellion led by the Houthitribesman in the North which hasresulted in a growing cascade ofcivilians being killed by the Yemeniregime. The military action insideYemen during the month of Decemberbefore the airline plot was seeminglydiscovered is widely suspected ofhaving direct American involvement viaairstrikes and Special Forces operations.This co-operation was strengthened andenhanced by a recent militaryagreement between Washington andSana’a agreed in November 2009. AsGeneral Petraeus’s visit now shows,clear plans are being made with theYemeni leadership for more directAmerican military involvement.Justifying the presence of their forcesfor the foreseeable future Britainannounced the financing of a new ‘anti-terror’ Yemeni Police unit while theAmerican’s announced an increase ofmilitary aid to $120 million. Havinglearnt from Bush’s mistakes andsubsequent painful loss of global publicopinion, Obama has discreetly andquietly started another war in Yemen.The airline ‘plot’ marks the next, overt,phase of Britain’s and America’s ‘War onTerror’ in Yemen.

However with the carrots there areplenty of sticks as well. As is the casewith such Western support it isconditional, and the threats are clearlyheld out as well. Secretary of StateHillary Clinton has often played thisrole with Pakistan as she infamouslyproclaimed in April 2009 that Islamabadand the entire Pakistani state werefacing an ‘existential threat’ if they didnot act immediately against the‘extremists’ in Pakistan. This wasfollowed by the massive Swat operationby the Zardari regime which made over3 million people homeless. NowClinton has again made plain that theyrequire compliance, saying "It's time forthe international community to make it


After having destroyed Iraq, America is deliberately fanning theflames of instability and insurgency in Pakistan. There is noreason to doubt that this is part of the real American objective inYemen as well.

clear to Yemen that there areexpectations and conditions on ourcontinuing support for the governmentso that they can take actions which willhave a better chance to provide thatpeace and stability to the people ofYemen and the region." Clinton’sstatement is an ominous precursor ofwhat is to come.

Yemen, a former British colony, hasbeen a victim of internal wars sinceindependence in 1967 and after theunification of North and South Yemenhas been undergoing another civil warsince 2004. The Houthi tribes arefighting the corrupt regime led byPresident Ali Abdullah Saleh who is aformer colonel in the Yemeni army, hasbeen in power in one shape or formsince 1978, ostensibly ‘democratically’elected. In the first direct Presidentialelection in 1999 Saleh was elected withan astonishing 96.3% of the vote. In animpoverished country where politicalabuse of power, manipulation andcorruption are rampant the value ofsuch elections is farcical where theruler has populated his governmentwith close family members. Saleh’sGeneral People’s Congress has usedconstitutional changes, tradeoffs anddeals with the main political oppositionto strengthen and maintain his grip on

power. Saleh is now using America’s‘War on Terror’ as his version of theAmerican global franchise to use ananti-terror campaign to mask his fightto crush growing dissent against hiscorrupt regime. International CrisisGroup in it’s 2009 report on Yemenstated that “Increasing domesticrepression under cover of an anti-terrorism campaign reflects growingstate insecurity.”

America is actually deliberately seekingto exploit the situation in a strategicallylocated country at the foot of the Gulf,Red sea and off the horn of Africa in anarea which contains some of theworld’s most important shipping lanes.The port of Aden in Yemen was ofprime logistical importance to theBritish Empire and explains why Britainis so anxious at getting involved in it’straditional asset lest it lose out toAmerica. The failure of America topacify Somalia through it’s proxiesexplains why Washington is so eager tosettle down in Yemen as an alternativevantage point on the Gulf of Adenthrough which passes most of the oilfrom the Middle East. Moreover China ismaking inroads into Africa and recentlyannounced it’s intention to build aMiddle Eastern naval base as it seeks toexpand it’s influence into the warmwaters of the Persian Gulf, once theexclusive preserve of Western colonialpowers. Washington seeks to deny anddominate completely this key strategicspace vital to China for it’s oil importsand other material interests in anattempt to control China’s spectaculareconomic growth.

However perhaps the threat to thestability of the pro-American Saudistooges in Riyadh is the mostcompelling factor for Washington tointervene directly; half of Yemen’spopulation is Shiite and with Iran’sbacking the flames of rebellion couldeasily spread well into Saudi’s oil richbut Shiite dominated provinces.

The strategy the US will actually deployin Yemen is something that only timewill tell. However as seen with Pakistan,America’s promises of aid and providing

stability in reality mean next to nothingfor the ordinary Muslim; Pakistan todayis sliding into a terrible disaster withfrequent bombings and Americanmilitary operations on it’s own territory.The US may promise one thing butwhat actually happens is plain foreveryone to see. After having destroyedIraq, America is deliberately fanning theflames of instability and insurgency inPakistan. There is no reason to doubtthat this is part of the real Americanobjective in Yemen as well.

This is because there is a widerstrategic goal being pursued aside fromimmediate material interests. From thecoast of Western Africa through theMiddle East, right across South andCentral Asia stretching out to Indonesiathe American Pentagon has defined an‘arc of instability’, countries which areinherently unstable because ofrepressive rulers, with some such asPakistan, now experiencing violentconvulsions. They also happen to beentirely Muslim, rich with abundantresources, whose populations areenraged by the oppressive dictatorialrule of tyrants and despots whomasquerade as Kings’ and Presidentswhich Western governments continueto strongly support such as HosniMubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah ofSaudi Arabia and now of course as seenwith President Ali Abdullah Saleh ofYemen.

This is the crux of the problem in theMuslim world, the continued betrayalby Muslim rulers supported by Westerngovernments. The Saudis are currentlydemonstrating their latest criminaltreachery. When Israel was slaughteringthe Palestinians in Gaza like animals lastyear, the Saudis did nothing militarily toprevent the Israeli attacks. They did notuse their expensive Western purchasedtanks and aircraft while it’s army sat init’s barracks; instead they tried toplacate ordinary Muslims by issuingtoken statements condemning Israel.Now, at the instigation of America, theSaudis have launched their own versionof the Israeli slaughter on the Muslimsof Yemen. How far removed theapparent champions of Islam are from

6 :: Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010 www.khilafah.eu

the Ummah.

If anyone doubts true Americanintentions then let them consider whatSTRATFOR, a widely knownmouthpiece for the CIA, said on 7thDecember 2009 where it argued “Thejihadists are currently playing directlyinto U.S. hands because, rhetoric aside,the United States cannot regardinstability in the Islamic world as aproblem. Let’s be more precise on this:

An ideal outcome for the United Stateswould be the creation of stable, pro-American regimes in the region…. Thesecond-best outcome for the UnitedStates involves a conflict in which theprimary forces battling — andneutralizing — each other are Muslim,with the American forces in asecondary role. This has been achievedto some extent in Iraq. Obama’s goal isto create a situation in Afghanistan inwhich Afghan government forcesengage Taliban forces with little or noU.S. involvement. Meanwhile, inPakistan the Americans would like tosee an effective effort by Islamabad tosuppress jihadists throughout Pakistan.If they cannot get suppression, theUnited States will settle for a longinternal conflict that would tie downthe jihadists.” The ‘arc of instability’serves American interests perfectly; itcannot get more black and white thanthat.

Britain and other Western governmentsshare this view; their long term goaland strategy is to deconstructpotentially strong and strategic Muslimcountries and to rebuild them to theextent where they achieve the desiredgeo-political outcome; they seek tocreate situations where controlledanarchy prevails, or ‘managed chaos’,whereby they achieve their materialgoals of extracting resources and usethese lands as strategic holding areas to

ward off others. They seek to directlymilitarily occupy Muslim lands such asIraq and Afghanistan where they can nolonger rely on puppet rulers to do theirbidding and safeguard their interests.Their primary motive for doing so isthat they fear the Islamic revival acrossthese Islamic lands. They fear that thesecular, usually pro-western, regimes inthese lands will fall and in their placewill rise the unified Islamic Caliphate.

As part of their rhetorical propagandaWestern leaders seek to portray anyonewho talks of politics based on Islam asbeing a ‘terrorist’ as Gordon Browndeclared recently that “Of courseit's……a murderous ideology that triesto create a caliphate.” Western leadersinsult the intelligence of Muslim andnon Muslim alike when they effectivelyargue that Muslims are incapable of amature peaceful Islamic politicaldiscourse; either you are a secularpolitician or an extremist. This is aninsult to the collective intelligence of1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, whocherish the memories of the firstCaliphs and the Caliphate ruling systemas a golden era. This in truth is amalicious attempt to smear all Muslimopposition to Western wars ofoccupation and support of corruptdictators like Saleh in Yemen.Arguments from the likes of Brown andObama do not wash with anyone, evenwith the majority of their ownpopulations, who can see that it isWestern foreign policy that is the realdriver to more wars and the threat toworld peace and security.

The ‘War on Terror’ is a bogus warwhich lost it’s credibility long ago inBush’s first term. Obama’s words tooare losing their gloss as peopleincreasingly judge him on his actions,not on his words. This is a man who hasincreased the war effort in Afghanistan

and Pakistan and now seeks to initiate anew one in Yemen. Obama is nodifferent from a snake oil salesman,who cuts an increasing figure as anempty vassal, devoid of any genuinethought but merely tries to re-packagethe same old tired rhetoric. Bush wasloud and reckless but Obama too isresorting to the law of the jungle neverhaving deployed a real argument in thefirst place. Yet today despite the Westbeing overwhelmingly superior inmilitary, economic and politicalstrength it has failed to remould andpacify the Muslim world in it’s vision.Despite all their best efforts the Muslimmasses today are seething, restless andready for change in favour of an Islamicruling system.

The West in turn has paid a tremendousprice, particularly America and Britain;their economies are practicallybankrupt from the national debt thathas ballooned ever since they launchedtheir ‘War on Terror’ culminating in theglobal economic crisis; and theirmilitaries are stretched to breakingpoint where they are forced to spillever more of their own blood. Sanerelements within western policy circlesshould consider that if this is the casetoday where the Muslim world is at it’sweakest, then certainly with the adventof the Caliphate tomorrow, the situationwill be entirely different, one in whichthe superiority that they enjoy in everyarena will be neutralised. Memories arenot short and ideas can only be stoppedwith stronger ones, not by bullets andbombs; it is only a short matter of timebefore the corrupt regimes in theMuslim world fall and ironically Westerngovernments are damaging the veryinterests they seek to protect. Yet withtheir new adventure in Yemen there isno evidence to believe that any of thiswill change for as Allah (SWT) informsin the Quran: “And when it is said untothem: Make not mischief in the earth,they say: We are peacemakers only.”[Surah Al Baqarah 2:11]�


The ‘War on Terror’ is a bogus war which lost it’s credibilitylong ago in Bush’s first term. Obama’s words too are losingtheir gloss as people increasingly judge him on his actions,not on his words.

Images from the aftermath of lastWednesday’s magnitude sevenearthquake in Haiti vividly highlight thehuge human tragedy and desperation ofthe survivors. Such events remind us allof human frailty and weakness whileAllah (swt) remains the All Powerful.Disasters like these should remind us allof yawn al-qiyama (the day ofjudgement) and should make us moreobedient to Allah (swt).

When the earth is shaken with its(final) earthquake. [TMQ Az-Zalzalah99:1]

Islam also teaches us that these disastersare a test for us to see whether we rushto help the survivors of such tragedies.

And if anyone saved a life, it would beas if he saved the life of all mankind.[TMQ Al-Maidah 5:32]

Will the Muslim governments in the Gulfand elsewhere be at the forefront ofdelivering aid to the suffering Haitians?Or are they too busy wasting theummah’s wealth building the tallestskyscrapers, shopping malls and indoorski resorts in the middle of the desert?The fact that they have failed in theirIslamic duty and hardly rendered help tothe starving millions in Somalia andAfghanistan does not fill one withconfidence that they will now mobilisefor Haiti. Why Haiti’s lack of basicinfrastructure even before this tragedy?

For many people, the tragedy of thisearthquake is mixed with anger at the

total incapacity of Haiti’s state structuresto respond to the disaster because littleinfrastructure and apparatus of afunctioning modern state existed in thefirst place. Even before Wednesday’stragic events, Haiti was the poorestcountry in the western hemisphere.Nearly 80% of its population live on lessthan US$2 a day. Only 62% of its adultpopulation are literate and 25% are inany form of employment and 30% havesanitation in their homes.

Debt to FranceWhen Haiti gained independence fromFrance after its revolution, in exchangefor diplomatic recognition from France,the new republic was forced to payenormous reparations: some 150mfrancs, in gold. It was an immense sum,and even reduced by more than half in

After Haiti’s earthquake,what will change?

www.khilafah.eu8 :: Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010

Taji Mustafa

1830, far more than Haiti could afford."The long and the short of it is that Haitiwas paying reparations to France from1825 until 1947," says Alex VonTunzelmann, a historian and writer. "Tocome up with the money, it took outhuge loans from American, German andFrench banks, at exorbitant rates ofinterest. By 1900, Haiti was spendingabout 80% of its national budget on loanrepayments. It completely wrecked theireconomy. By the time the originalreparations and interest were paid off,

the place was basically destitute andtrapped in a spiral of debt." It is ironicthat in the last few days France’sPresident Sarkozy started talking aboutwanting to rid Haiti of poverty once andfor all when he said "From thiscatastrophe, which follows so manyothers, we should make sure that it is achance to get Haiti once and for all outof the curse it seems to have been stuckwith for such a long time,". Heconveniently failed to mention Francesrole in perpetrating Haiti’s tragedy.

US interferenceOver the last two centuries, the US hasalso repeatedly interfered in Haiti andeven invaded and occupied it in 1915terrified that Haiti was about to defaulton its massive debts. A 1922 loan ofmillions of dollars owed to the USresulted in a financial system thatsiphoned the country's wealth tooffshore creditors instead of reinvestingit in the country's economy. France andthe United States have repeatedlyintervened in Haitian politics since thecountry's founding, sometimes at therequest of one party or another. The lasttime the US officially invaded thecountry was as recently as 1994 afterwhich it then formally withdrew to bereplaced by a UN force.

Local leaders as lootersAdded to all this is the that fact that asuccession of Haitian leaders more orless gave up on trying to resolve Haiti'sproblems, and started looting it instead.During the 28 years in power of PapaDoc Duvalier and his playboy son andheir, Jean-Claude Duvalier, or Baby Doc,they made themselves very rich indeedreportedly embezzling up to 80% ofHaiti's international aid, while the debtsthey signed up to ¬account for 45% ofwhat the country owes today. And whenBaby Doc ¬finally fled, estimates of whathe took with him run as high as $900m.

Corrupt Western backed leaders anddirect interference by western powershave contributed to the tragic state thatbecame Haiti despite its human andnatural resources. As the masses of theworld empathise with the people ofHaiti, many struggle to imagine how itsnext chapter will be different to itsprevious ones.�

www.khilafah.eu Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010 :: 9

Right-wing think tanks linked to politicalpower in the United States were the recipefor the global war on terror. Now historyseems to be repeating itself as Britainheads for a general election and a newgeneration of war-mongers looks set toassume office.

Very few people had heard ofneoconservatism when George W Bushcame to power in 2000. Yet over the next 8years the word became associated withsome of the most ruthless, war-mongeringand blood thirsty colonial policies theworld had ever seen.

What is Neoconservatism?Neoconservatism is a political philosophywithin secular and capitalist thought. Itwas first postulated in the years afterWorld War 2 by the political thinker LeoStrauss. Its most significant aspect is that itbelieves in using economic and militarypower of the State to bring liberalism,democracy, and the western way of life toother countries.

But one of the most striking things aboutthis political thought is that its founderindoctrinated some of his students withthese ideas, and over the decades theviews found a foothold within politicalthink tanks, and eventually into mainstreamUS politicians.

Neocons in the USBefore the election won by George WBush, the think tank called the Project forthe New American Century (PNAC)launched a mission statement which isnoteworthy because many of thesignatories became associated with theBush administration.

PNAC said that “The history of the pastcentury should have taught us to embracethe cause of American leadership” and itaimed to establish four core missions forthe US military including to “defend theAmerican homeland; fight and decisivelywin multiple, simultaneous major theaterwars; perform the “constabulary” dutiesassociated with shaping the securityenvironment in critical regions; transformU.S. forces to exploit the “revolution inmilitary affairs”

Signatories and contributors to significantdocuments and reports included "Jeb"Bush (the President’s brother andGovernor of Florida), Richard Armitage(former Deputy Secretary of State), ZalmayKhalilzad (former US Ambassador to UN,Iraq and Afghanistan), Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby(Vice President Dick Cheney's chief ofstaff), Richard Perle (Chairman of theDefense Policy Board Advisory Committeefrom 2001 to 2003) and Donald Rumsfeld(former Defence Secretary).

This think tank was by no means unique inWashington. The Heritage Foundation, theAmerican Enterprise Institute, the NixonCentre and the Hudson Institute have allbeen associated with this strand ofthinking. However, ultimately it was thisthink tank that had the strongest links topeople within the government.

Generally, all these right-wing think tanksand politicians created the politicalopinion that eventually translated intopolicies that included:

- The invasion and occupation ofAfghanistan

- The invasion and occupation of Iraq- The founding of Camp Delta inGuantanamo Bay in Cuba for ‘enemycombatants’ without rights

- The use of torture by the CIA and theoutsourcing of torture to secret locationsaround the world, known as extraordinaryrendition

- The launch of the global war on terrorFor these reasons, the word ‘neocon’became a despised word across the world,including amongst many ordinary citizensof Europe and America who have becomewar-weary and regret the seizing of powerby these arrogant and aggressivepoliticians who caused so much bloodshedand chaos.

Neoconservatism in BritainDespite the fall in support for this strandof thinking in America, in Britain a curiousthing has happened almost unnoticed bythe general public. An almost identicalprocess to that in the US has led to right-wing neoconservative thinking dominatinga political party – this time the BritishConservative (or Tory) Party. The Tory party lost the 1997 UK GeneralElection and was in disarray for some yearsafter. However, in 2005 there was aleadership election which was won byDavid Cameron, supported by a coterie of‘young turks’ who seized the politicalvacuum caused by the divisions in theparty. These Cameron supporters, knownas the ‘Notting Hill set’ (because they livein Notting Hill - the same London localityas Cameron), include Michael Gove MP,George Osborne MP and Ed Vaizey MP – allof whom are known as supporters ofneoconservatism.

Some of these politicians, most notablyGove, strongly supported their opponentformer British Prime Minister Tony Blair inhis pro-war anti-terror policies and wars ofpre-emption.

Gove was a former director of a Britishright-wing think tank called the PolicyExchange, now infamous for producinganti-Muslim and anti-Islamic reports. Thisthink-tank, which has strong links to DavidCameron, issued a pamphlet in 2007 called‘The Hijacking of British Islam: HowExtremist Literature is Subverting Mosquesin the UK’ by Denis MacEoin. It claimed tobe 'the most comprehensive academic


Dr Abdul Wahid

Britain’sNeocons

survey of such literature ever produced inthis country' but was later exposed asbeing so flawed the Policy Exchange haveeven removed it from their website.

Gove is also the author of the book Celsius7/7, a book that led to many feeling that heharboured a hostile attitude towards Islamand Muslims. The respected historian andauthor William Dalrymple, when reviewingthe book, said it was a "confused epic ofsimplistic incomprehension". The book'scover jacket boasted that Gove was aleading writer and thinker on terrorism,but Dalrymple challenged his qualificationson this statement saying “ThroughoutGove’s book, neocon myths are reheatedand served up, despite being longdiscredited, most recently by the 2005 CIAreport just released by the SenateCommittee on Intelligence. Saddam,believes Gove, “invited Islamists into Iraq”;was “determined to pursue his WMDprogramme” and “dreamt of emulating”9/11, strongly suggesting the central lie ofSaddam’s non-existent links with 9/11.”

Gove, together with Ed Vaizey MP (aCameron ally), is a supporter to the HenryJackson Society – a UK based think tankthat shares neocon principles, and whoseother supporters also include MichaelAncram MP (a former Conservativefrontbencher), David Willetts MP (part ofCameron’s Shadow Cabinet team), DavidTrimble (who sits on the Conservativebenches in the House of Lords), as well asSir Richard Dearlove — former head of theBritish Secret Intelligence Service. Othersupporters for this Society include theAmerican economist Irwin Stelzer –known to be close to media magnateRupert Murdoch - a Cameron supporter –and Richard Perle and William Kristol twoof the signatories to the Project for theNew American Century.

The Henry Jackson Society’s statement ofprinciples originally argue a “‘forwardstrategy’ to assist those countries that arenot yet liberal and democratic to becomeso” involving “diplomatic, economic,cultural or political” policies as ‘carrots’ butalso “those ‘sticks’ of the military domain.”It also “supports the maintenance of astrong military, by the United States, thecountries of the European Union and otherdemocratic powers”. Like PNAC it fosters awestern supremacist viewpoint saying that“that only modern liberal democratic statesare truly legitimate”.

Cameron’s Neocon CredentialsDavid Cameron has very deliberatelymanufactured a media image as amoderate, centrist and liberal politician. Hehas tried to distance himself fromneoconservatism calling himself a ‘liberalconservative’. However, this imagecultivated by media advisors and spindoctors has not deceived everyone.

On the 26th November 2005 the Spectatormagazine carried an article entitled: “NowCameron is positioning himself as the heirto George W. Bush” whilst the Guardiannewspaper has published an opinion piecetitled “Cameron is no moderate”. Politicalwriter David Morrison, writing beforeCameron’s leadership success, wrote about‘David Cameron: Blair Mark II’ citing hissupport for the Iraq war, and exposing theneocon ties of his closest supporters Gove,Osborne and Vaizey. George Osborne, whois Shadow Chancellor and a school friendof Cameron’s, once hailed the 'excellentneo-conservative case' for action againstIraq and that he was a 'signed-up, card-carrying Bush fan'!

His current spokesman for Home AffairsChris Grayling gave key speech onterrorism to the US think tank the HeritageFoundation. In 2003 Douglas J. Feith –former under Secretary of Defence in theBush administration said that “The HeritageFoundation helped created the alliance ofthe neocons”.

Grayling showed his true colours when hecriticised the decision of former HomeSecretary Jackie Smith to ban MichaelSavage from the UK – the American talk-show host who was once quoted as sayingMuslims "need deportation", and thatadherents of Islam would do well to “take

your religion and shove it up your behind”because "I’m sick of you."Also, Cameron’s new defence advisorretired General Sir Richard Dannatt,echoed Bush and Blair making an attack onthe Caliphate, whilst Cameron’s ShadowDefence Minister Liam Fox, wrote abelligerent war-mongering article againstIran in the Times newspaper on 1stJanuary 2010.

Cameron’s Neoconservative anti-MuslimPolicies

As time has gone on there have beenclearer examples of Cameron’s and theConservative’s hostile attitudes towardsMuslims. These include a recent attack onMuslim schools; repeated calls to ban Hizbut-Tahrir (a non-violent but strong voiceopposing colonial foreign policy); arguing– like Blair – that Muslims have falsegrievances and a sense of victimhood; apro-Iraq war policy; a policy that wouldescalate Britain’s foothold in Afghanistanand Pakistan; escalating the war rhetoricon Iran; and a policy that even describessome integrationist Muslim groups as‘extremist’!

Cameron, described himself as a Zionist in2007 and once said his belief in Israel is‘very deep and inside of me’ and‘indestructible’. In 2009 when addressing agathering of the Conservative Friends ofIsrael in the aftermath of Israel’s massacresin Gaza, described by the UN as warcrimes, Cameron went out of his way topraise Israel because it “strives to protectinnocent life”.

ConclusionCameron and his party appear to bemanoeuvring their way to power on amoderate ticket. But there are all the signsthat they will pursue a foreign policy andMuslim policies every bit as aggressive asBush’s Neocons or Tony Blair. Peopleshould realise that they will continue tomask their true face until they feel theyhave safely won moderate opinion inBritain and secured power, very much astheir predecessors Bush and Blair did overa decade before. Those who hoped forpeace after so much war, or stability afterso much chaos will have to put up withyet more masters of war in positions ofpower. �


All Praises are due to Allah (swt), we bearwitness nothing is worthy of worshipexcept for Him, and we bear witness thatthe Prophet Mohammad (saw) is His slaveand Messenger

There are more than 50 chapters in theQur’an that mention various stories of theProphets

From Musa and Banu Israel, the story ofAdam with details in multiple places, thestory of Nuh, the story of Yusuf, the storyof Luqman and so on.

It is known that not even a letter of theQur’an has been revealed without awisdom and a purpose, not a single letterof the Qur’an was revealed without areason, so when we see the amount ofchapters and ayaat that discuss the storiesof the Prophets, we have to know there isa reason behind it.

And we know that Allah (swt) revealed theQur’an with the truth: “It is He who sentdown the book to you with the truth”[al-Imran: 2]

“That is because Allah has sent down theBook with the Truth” [al-Baqara :176]

These stories are haq, and they are part ofthe haq, just as we are ordered by the haq,and to carry the haq to all people.Just as we are ordered by the Islamicaqeeda, by our ‘ibadaat, by the rules andregulations of the mu’amalaat, to learn andteach the ahkam we need to live our livesin accordance with the haq.

We are ordered to learn, to teach and actupon the Qur’an – in its entirety – thatAllah mentions (addressing bani Israel).“Do you believe in part of the book, anddisbelieve in part” [al-Baqara : 85]

The Prophets of Allah(swt) in the Quran


So we believe in the Qur’an in its entirety,and we learn, teach and act upon theQur’an in its entirety, and from this Qur’anare those ayaat which contain these storiesof the Prophets – which are there for us tocontemplate over, learn from and act uponthe examples – otherwise what is theapplication of these large amounts ofnarrations in the Qur’an, and Allah doesnot reveal anything which is of no use.

Allah (swt) – has ordered us to be witnessover mankind: “Thus We have made you ajust/middle ummah, in order to bewitnesses over mankind and theMessenger a witness over you” [al-Baqara 143]

We are the middle ummah – in all issues. Ifyou look at the economic crisis that afflictsCapitalism, the global financial markets,and compare it to what happened at thetime of the collapse of the Communists –these two extremes in economic theory.One which sanctifies state ownership, andthe other which sanctifies privateownership. Both have now proven to befalse, whereas Islam recognises privateownership, state ownership, and publicownership, and gives each its due. When itcomes to the relation between the spiritualand the material, here you have the secularwhich negates the spiritual in the publicarena, and then in some ideas in thepersonal life people will take the spiritualto the extremes. In communism thespiritual aspect was completely denied andthe material was sanctified. Whereas inIslam – we mix the material and spiritualin all issues, our lives are as a worship toAllah because we recognise that is thereason we were created. So from our food,to drink, to our politics, and business, wemix the two by recognising Allah’s rulesand laws in all that we do, by applying theShari’a in life’s affairs whether personal orpublic.

In order for the Muslim ummah to bedescribed as witnesses over mankind – itmeans that daw’a must be carried tomankind, to inform them of their purposein this life, to inform them of the belief inAllah, and the shari’a of Islam. Whoevercarries this to mankind, he deserves to becharacterised as being a witness over them,and if not then he does not deserve thischaracteristic.

So daw’a, is an honourable work, which no

Muslim should neglect, otherwise he hasneglected and lost out on a great deal ofgood, and has denied himself thedescription of being a witness overmankind, as being part of this middleummah that was sent to deliver Islam to allthe peoples and nations of the earth.“And we did not send you except as arahma to the ‘aalameen” [al-anbiya :107]

“I was sent to all the people” (Bukhari)

So the Prophet Muhammad (saw) was sentto the whole of mankind, to bring thewhole of mankind within the fold of Islam,and after the death of the Prophet (saw)we take his place – not in terms ofProphethood but in terms of continuing tocarry the daw’a of Islam to the World, andto all the different peoples of the World.

It should be noted – that different peoples,have different characteristics, differentmannerisms, behaviours and morals. Forexample the Japanese and the orientalconcept of honour, the Americans areknown for self-confidence and brashness,Germans are known for their disciplineand methodical approach.

So the character of this ummah that wassent as a witness over mankind, to conveythe call of Islam to the whole of mankind,needs to be prepared to deal with differentpeople, different mentalities andbehaviours. When a daw’a carrier dealswith farmers in the villages of ruralcommunities he should be able to relate tothem and convey to them the message ofIslam in an appropriate way, and in thesame manner he should be able to relate topeople of a scientific nature, or peoplewho hold power, or people who areoppressed.

And this is where the story of the Prophetsthat came before are so important, sincethey are examples of how the daw’a wascarried to different people. The underlying,critical message of all the Prophets is thesame – tawheed, to worship only Allah, toleave behind anything other than Allah, butthe peoples they were delivering themessage to were each different, differentpeoples, different ideas, different culture,different ideas and different corruptions.

So the way Prophet Nuh addressed hispeople, was different from the address ofIbraheem, or Musa, or Saleh, or Lut.

Although the basic message was the same:

“And indeed we sent Nuh to his people “Ihave come to you as a plain warner ;that you worship none except Allah”[Hud 25-6]

“And to Aad (we sent) their brother Hud,who said “O people worship Allah, youhave no other God but him” [Hud 50]

“And to Thamud (we sent) their brotherSaleh, who said “O people worship Allah,you have no other God except him”[Hud 61]

So this is tawheed, the basic message tomankind, which each and every Prophetwithout exception delivered to who theywere sent to warn, but each had to dealwith different concepts, behaviours andideas that stood in the way of deliveringthat message.

“And they said you will not leave yourGods, and you will not leave Wad norSuwa’a and not Yaghuuth nor Ya’ooq norNasra (names of their idols)” [Nuh 23]

At the time of Musa, Fir’own used to claimdivinity for himself “So he (fir’own) said “Iam your Lord Most High” [An-naazi’aat 24]

At the time of Lut, the behaviour which hispeople had adopted was something whichno one had done previously:

“And (remember) Lut when he said to hispeople “Do you commit the worst sin suchas none proceeded you has committed inthe ‘alameen” [al-A’raaf 80]

So each nation had their own peculiarities,and each Messenger as well had certaincharacteristics, and each was sent to theirpeople alone.

And this is the difference with the ProphetMohammad – that each of the prophetswho came before him was sent to theirown people, whereas the ProphetMohammad was sent to his people, andto the whole of mankind not only at histime but until the day of judgement.

“Each messenger was sent to his peoplespecifically, and I have been sent toMankind generally” (Bukhari)As we already mentioned, after the death


of the Prophet Mohammad , it is the wholeof the Muslim ummah who continues toshoulder this responsibility to fulfil thistrait.

So we are one ummah, who has beenordered to carry the daw’a of Islam to allthe world, across the ages, and we haveseveral examples to help us in knowinghow to carry the daw’a to the differentpeople and nations.

And Allah has revealed in the Qur’an,several examples, which we can equipourselves with, and benefit from. So every Muslim, seeking to fulfil hisobligation of carrying the call to the Deenof Islam, should stop to reflect andconsider these stories seriously, not for thesake of enjoyment or pleasure, or simplyattaining knowledge, but rather we want toattain the beneficial knowledge, that whichwill benefit us in this life and the next.

And these stories take on extrasignificance again today – given that manyof them were revealed to the ProphetMohammad (saw) in Mecca, during thetime when the Prophet (saw) and thosearound him from the sahaba were in aposition of weakness, suffering fromslander, abuse, torture, exile, boycotts, andall kinds of personal and politicalpressures, before the victory of Allah came.And we are living in parallel times, withoutthe protection an Islamic state provides:“Indeed in their stories there is a lesson formen of understanding. It is not a forgedstatement but of confirmation of whichwere before it and a detailed explanation

of everything, and a guide and mercy forthe people who believe” [Yusuf 111]

So they are a confirmation of al-Islam, andan explanation of everything, and aguidance and a mercy for us – and it isupon us to learn about them for guidance

“They are those whom Allah had guided sofollow their guidance. Say “I don’t ask youany reward for this rather it is only areminder for the ‘aalameen” [al-An’am90]

The Prophet was ordered to follow theirexample, and so this is an order for us aswell. This order is not an order to followthem in the details of their shara’ih, butrather in the usool/ roots of the deen, theissue of tawheed, and this is the discussionof the Laws of the Prophets that camebefore.

ConclusionAs such, when one reads these stories inthe Qur’an (which is the lifeblood for theMuslim), he wants to take more than justthe reward of the tilawa. Rather he has tocontemplate on these stories, and whatthey contain in experience, guidance andlessons for him.

To briefly mention some of these criticalpoints that the muslim should take fromthese stories – so that we can know whatto look out for when we discuss thesestories in detail inshahAllah –To fortify himself – as the Prophet (saw)himself was fortified:“And all that we narrate to you (O

Mohammad) of the news of themessengers is in order that We may makeyour heart strong and firm. And in thishas come to you the truth, as well as anadmonition and a reminder for thebelievers” [Hud 120]

Patience – in confronting the slander, liesand problems (and not to be reactionary):“Truly, Messengers before you were (also)denied/lied against, but they were patientover what they were denied and theywere hurt, until our victory/ help reachedthem, and none can alter the Words(decisions) of Allah. Surely there hasreached you news about the (previous)messengers” [al-An’aam 34]

And we know that sabr – patience – is toremain steadfast on the rules and laws ofAllah.

Sincerity, and working purely for the sakeof Allah and not seeking any other reward “I don’t ask you any reward for it, thereward is only from the Lord of the‘aalameen” [as-Shu’ara 109]

Leaving behind desires and referring toAllah

Carry the daw’a with full confidence andwithout fear, since Allah is with those whocall to the Straight Path Belief that thevictory is only from Allah – and that thosepeoples who came before us who used tothink of themselves as the superpowers,were destroyed when their time came.

“As for ‘Aad, they were arrogant in theland without right, and they said “Who ismightier than us in strength?” Do theynot see that Allah Who created them ismightier in strength than them, And theyused to deny our Ayaat (lessons,evidences, verses etc.)” [Fusillat 15]

All of these lessons, we should seek tolearn and reflect upon as we embark onthis journey through the beautiful storiesof those Prophets who came before, andwhose stories remain for us as examplesand guidance. The differences betweentheir times and ours is only in technology,and is not in the ideas, beliefs andbehaviours.

And all Praises are due to Allah.�

Khilafah Magazine :: November 2009 :: 14 www.khilafah.eu14 :: Khilafah Magazine :: February 2010

In the final weeks of 2009, world leadersalongside thousands of delegates attendedthe 2009 United Nations Climate ChangeConference, commonly known as theCopenhagen Summit. This was billed as thesummit to save the planet, whereby aninternational accord set by bindingpromises to reduce global CO2 levelswould have been achieved – therebyforestalling the effects of catastrophicclimate change that has been modelled byscientists to occur a few decades fromnow. Hopes ran so high, that preceding thesummit, well wishers christened theDanish Capital as ‘Hopenhagen’.

By the end of two weeks of deadlockednegotiations, no sweeping deal wasachieved. The outcome of the CopenhagenSummit, which was brokered by USpresident, Barack Obama, and known asthe Copenhagen Accord, was sobreathtakingly unambitious that the wholesummit was universally condemned as a

disaster. No binding targets to reduce CO2emissions were set, no guarantees forfunding to poorer nations made, and onlyvague references were made for futureprojects. In all, ‘Hopenhagen’ had turnedinto a ‘Nopenhagen’ (with a midway phaseof being Constipagen).

CRISIS UPON CRISIS

Climate change has become identified asthe most serious environmental challengefacing humanity. Climate changehypothesises that the climate responds toincreasing levels of human induced global‘greenhouse’ gases such as CO2. This inturn it is argued causes global warming - apermanent and irreversible increase inglobal temperature which leads to adverseecological and environmental impacts.There is however disagreement on theevidence for global temperature changeand to what extent the estimated increasein global temperature is related to human

industrial activity. Nevertheless, it isgenerally accepted that continuallypumping copious volumes of greenhousegases into the atmosphere has thepotential to lead to global warming.

An increase in the global temperature ofthe planet is likely to have many harmfuleffects such as rising sea levels frommelting polar caps and an increase inextreme weather events such as floodsand droughts. This will adversely affectmillions of people through loss of life andproperty; farming output may drasticallydrop, while an increase in waterbornediseases may overwhelm the healthcaresystems of less prepared nations.

The Copenhagen Summit was designed tofocus on an internationally bindingapproach to mitigate the effects ofclimate change; much of this approachhas been centred on carbon tradingschemes, whereby companies are given

Abdul Manaan

From Copenhagen toBrokenhagen – So who willsave the Environment?


an allocation of CO2 allowances fromwhich they can buy and sell allowancesaccording to a capped limit. In effect thedesired outcome is to create a commodityof “permits to pollute”, and to turn theatmosphere into a market. This is premisedon the belief that the market is the mostefficient means of allocating resources,thus when applied to CO2 allowances, themarket would establish a ‘price’ for CO2;this price would then yield itself to thetechnologies that can most effectivelyabsorb this new price, as an examplebuilding a wind farm would be preferableto a coal powered power station due tothe avoided CO2 costs.However something is dangerously amisswith this whole approach. Such intenseefforts have been made to publicise theclimate change challenge, one wouldassume this is the only environmentalthreat the planet is facing. Whilst climatechange is a serious issue, it is only onescene in a motion picture ofenvironmental woes the planet is facing.Disaster after disaster is pushing theEarth’s ecosystems to the brink of collapse;whether it be the ozone layer depletion,soil erosion, deforestation, toxic wastedumping, acidification of the oceans, oracute loss of biodiversity – the litany ofproven and evidenced environmentalproblems and their toll on human societiesare too long to list.

However, the solutions to these problemsdo not lie in new international regulations,summits or accords - which are ostensiblydesigned for public appeasement. Indeedthe Copenhagen summit exemplifieseverything that is wrong in the currentapproach – ignoring the cause of the

problem, and treating the symptoms. Nor isthis the first time either. Whether it be lastyear’s financial crisis that plumbed thebottom of a recession or the food crisis theyear before that raised the cost of essentialfoodstuffs beyond the reach of millions.Solutions were targeted at enforcing newregulations or endless name blamingexercises, all the while ignoring thedepraved system that produces andnurtures such crisis after crisis.

....AND THIS SYSTEM IS CAPITALISM

Capitalism as the dominant ideology andmode of life in the world has smotheredthis planet like a giant vampire squid,sucking the planet of its preciousresources and spreading its tentacles inevery way to continually choke the life ofthe planet and its inhabitants.

This system cannot survive withoutperpetual growth. In the context of findingan equitable economic solution to meetingmans various material needs, it has none. Itbelieves in a constant and incessant needto increase production. Only by massivelyincreasing production of all goods, then itbelieves mankind can satisfy its needs. Indoing so, Capitalism will drive to find andcreate new markets. Even when man hasno need to fulfil, Capitalism throughintense marketing and advertising hascreated consumerism as a means to fulfilnew markets.

To illustrate with an example, a personmay only need two teaspoons of sugar inhis tea. Under capitalist conditions themarket would have been oversupplied toprovide two kilograms of sugar. The man

cannot be forced to take more than twosugars in his tea. So in a capitalist society itwill create a sweet fizzy drinks market toutilise the excess sugar. It will thenpromote brands to entice the man to drinkfizzy drinks in addition to his tea. Once theman starts drinking fizzy drinks, demandwill have increased for sugar, and themarkets will then proceed to furtheroversupply the market with sugar fromincreased production – starting theprocess of finding new markets once again.This though is no hypothetical tale.Decades of slash and burn policies havedestroyed pristine hectares of Amazonrainforests to grow sugarcane. When littlemore use could be found for the sweetenerin food products, sugar production wasused for gasoline substitution. Thissequence will continue until there are noforests left.

Consumerism is designed to createrapacious appetites for the useless. Tocreate need when there is none. Fewwould argue that humans should live insafe and affordable conditions, and accessto basic amenities such as electricity, gas,water and sanitation should be a given. Butshould we be goaded into believing thattwo cars are better than one? That we needa new kitchen every six months? Thatclothes are for wearing only until the nextsale comes along? That our mobile phonesneed upgrading every year? That our 26”television needs to be traded in for a 42”one? If so, then it is little wonder that theplanet’s environment is teetering on anedge.

The attachment accorded to endlessgrowth is clearly seen when the yardstickof Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figuresare used to measure whether a nation isprospering. Only positive figures are worthhearing about, and negatives ones indicatea recession. In the Capitalist ethos, allproducts are good if they help to increaseGDP. A nation may have a high GDP solelyattributed to tobacco, alcohol and thepornography industries – yet these are allseen as positive economic gains. Capitalismis seen to engender no moral or societalinterests, only economic. So when it comesto the environment, its importance issimply rendered last when measuredagainst material interests. In specificrelation to the matter of climate changeand the Copenhagen Summit, Venezuelanpresident Hugo Chavez quite aptly


surmised why it failed so miserably whenhe said ‘if the climate was a bank, theywould have already saved it’

WITH ISLAM THERE IS A WAY...If we lived in a time where Islam waspresent in the lives of man, his communityand under the ordinance of a righteousCaliph, then our times would becharacterised by a harmony and peace thatmillions across the world would cherishand flock to. For we are well aware thatAllah Most High has not left man unguided,

for indeed He gave us a unique religionthat perfectly resolves all of man’s issues,whether it be personal to himself, hisrelationships with others, his relationshipsin society and indeed his relationship withthe world at large. In saying this, when welook at the calamities facing theenvironment, there is no silver bulletsolution, rather the realisation thatadhering to Islam as a way of life rendersan effective balance that ensures suchtragedies never occur in the first place.

A fully detailed guideline to the Islamicsolution is covered in the book publishedby Hizb ut Tahrir Denmark “TheEnvironmental Problem – Its Causes &Islam’s Solution”

Islam does not make economic gain apriority over other values, but achievesequilibrium between the economic,spiritual, ethical and humanitarian needs ofman. When the economic value isprioritised over all others, man ischaracterised by excess greed and overconsumption, profit becomes the keymotive in life, as exemplified by Capitalism.In Islam the seeking of profit fromenterprise and commerce is a commendedactivity, but not at the expense of humanlife or that of the environment. In a hadithof our beloved Prophet (salallahu alaihiwasallam), he stated “There should neitherbe harming nor reciprocating harm” [IbnMajaj, Daraqtuni]. Consequently, as anexample, a manufacturing plant would beprohibited from polluting the atmosphereor waterways if this caused harm to human

life or destructive harm to theenvironment. The greater imperative is laidon preventing harm than increasingprofits.

Islam nurtures an important sense ofresponsibility of care and trust towards theenvironment and animal life. There aremany traditions of our beloved Prophet(saw) that exhort the believer to noturinate in commonly used waterways; tonot squander water during ablution; to doyour best to protect trees even in the

process of Jihad and to enjoin goodwelfare upon animals. One hadith inparticular displays that this sense ofresponsibility itself carries a great reward,narrated from Abu Hurayra, when theProphet (peace and blessing be upon him)said “While a man was on a road, hebecame very thirsty and he found a welland went down into it. He drank and thencame out. There was a dog panting andeating mud out of thirst. The man said,‘This dog has become as thirsty as I was.’So he went down the well and filled up hisshoe with water and then let the dogdrink. So Allah thanked him and forgavehim”. They (companions) said, ‘Messengerof Allah, do we have a reward for animals?’He (saw) said, ‘There is a reward for everyliving thing (with a moist liver).’ [Bukhari]

Islam mandates that the public resourcesare the property of the Muslims and thebenefit to be apportioned to the publiconly and not for private gain. The likes offossil fuels and mineral resources such asiron and copper are defined as publicproperty from the Shari’ah perspective.Their utilisation is then maintained via theIslamic State and not private companies.Examples such as strip mining and thedumping of heavy metals in the localenvironment is a common feature forCapitalist private companies striving forthe quickest profits. As public propertiesare for the benefit of the people in Islam,there is no benefit in harming the peopleto achieve this benefit, accordingly theutilisation of fossil fuels and their like aremanaged in a sustainable and

environmentally conscious manner.

Islam does not cater for specific regulationor oversight to manage environmentalissues – as concern for the environment isalready intrinsically present in the God-fearing piety of individuals, the individualsthat partake in business and industrialactivities, as well as the actions of Stategovernance that impact the environment.If though, transgressions occur, the IslamicState’s judicial apparatus will intervene andapply punitive measures. The first is thepresence of the Qadhi al-Hisbah(Supervisory Judge), who monitors thepublic’s activities such as those in themarkets, businesses, factories andindustries to ensure they are not incontravention to the Shari’ah. This typicallyincludes fraud and cheating, but harmcaused to the environment is also aShari’ah violation that will be punished.The second is the Qadhi al-Khusamat(Judge of Disputes). This judge willdetermine matters raised by victims. Incases where pollutants have caused harmto humans, this judge will determineaccording to the Shari’ah the recompenserequired to the victims of harm caused byother humans. The final measure, is thepresence of the Qadhi al-Madhalim (Judgeof Unjust Acts), here the judge relates tomatters pertaining to violations of theShari’ah or conflicts between the ruler andthe people. If state-run factories werefound to be causing environmental harm,the Judge of Unjust Acts would interveneto ensure the Shari’ah rules pertaining tothe environment are applied by the rulerand the State.

It was inevitable that the Copenhagensummit turned into Nopenhagen aspresent consumption patterns are leadingto the depletion of key minerals such aswater wells, fossil fuels and agriculturalland. At the same time the consumption ofsuch minerals is leading to pollutionentering the atmosphere and the effect ofthis is now being felt across the world.Although most if not all of the modelsused to track the temperature in theatmosphere or the cooling effect isdebateable and open to speculation, onething that is for certain is Capitalism hasno intention of reducing its consumptionof the world’s limited minerals any timesoon.�


Islam does not make economic gain a priority over othervalues, but achieves equilibrium between the economic,spiritual, ethical and humanitarian needs of man.

Between the 30th of June and the 11thand 12th of December of 2009, the Iraqigovernment auctioned off much offIraq’s proven crude oil reserves.

Among the oilfields that went under thehammer were the giant Rumaila oilfieldwith an estimated contents of 17 billionbarrels (peak production expected to bearound 2.9 million barrels per day), theWest Qurna oilfields 1 and 2 with anestimated contents of 8.6 billion barrelsand 12.9 billion barrels respectively(total peak production expected to bearound 4.4 million barrels per day), theMajnoon oilfield with an estimatedcontents of 12.6 billion barrels (totalpeak production expected to be around1.8 million barrels per day) and theZubair oilfield with an estimatedcontents of 4 billion barrels (peak

production expected to be around 1.1million barrels per day).

The most striking outcome of thebidding process was that American oilcompanies were largely excluded fromthe deals struck. Only ExxonMobil(together with Shell) landed a deal withthe Iraqi government to develop theWest Qurna Phase 1 oilfield, andOccidental Petroleum is part of a dealbetween Eni of Italy and the Iraqigovernment for the Zubair oilfield. Mostother contracts went to the oilcompanies of countries that wereopposed to the American/British war inIraq, most notably Russia and China. TheRumaila oilfield went to BP and CNPCfrom China; the West Qurna Phase 2oilfield went to Lukoil from Russia andStatoil of Norway; and the Majnoon

oilfield went to Shell and Petronas fromMalaysia.

This outcome of the Iraqi oil auction ispresented by some as a discreditation ofthe claim that the American invasion ofIraq in 2003 was about the Iraqi oil.Instead, it is said, the auction resultsprove that the invasion was, and hasalways remained, about bringingfreedom and democracy to the people ofIraq. For most Iraqi oil deals went toNon-American companies.

The correctness of this assertion will beanalysed below.

THE REALITY OF WARS FOR OILThe strategist is concerned with crudeoil because it is a commodity of strategicimportance, for various reasons. Forinstance, crude oil provides the energythat enables economic activity. Andcrude oil fuels the airplanes, rockets andtanks that are used to fight wars. That iswhy it can be said that crude oil isalways on the mind of strategists, asaccess to crude oil can make-or-breakeconomies (just ask the Chinese…) andwin-or-lose wars. Because crude oil isthis important in military and economicaffairs, its market value is considerablyhigher than its production value. InSaudi-Arabia and Iraq, for instance, theproduction cost of crude oil is estimatedbetween $1.00 – $2.00 per barrel . Inthe market this crude currently trades ataround $65 per barrel. This is why thebusinessman is also concerned withcrude oil, as it is a source of significantprofits.

But of these two perspectives on crudeoil, it being a tool for power and a tool

A political analysis of therecent Iraqi oil auction

Idries de Vries


for profit, clearly the first is by far themost important. Power establishesinfluence, and that can easily be used toestablish profits. And crude oil is somuch a tool for power that control overit can easily be used to establish profitsfar beyond the profits associated withthe profits in pumping up the oil. That iswhy when it is said that wars are foughtfor crude oil, this should not beunderstood as meaning that wars arefought to enable certain businessmenrather than others to profit from crudeoil. The meaning of the statement “warsare fought for oil” is that nations go towar with the intent to establish controlover the flow of crude oil.

As such, the importance of the recentcrude oil deals between the Iraqigovernment and certain oil companiesdoes not lie in who exactly they allowto make a profit from the Iraqi crude oil.It lies in who is given control over theIraqi oil.

The reality of the Iraqi oil dealsThe contracts recently agreed betweenthe Iraqi government and various oilcompanies differ markedly from what isthe standard in the oil industry. Usually,governments and oil companies agree toso-called “Production SharingAgreements (PSA)”. Under a PSA thegovernment gives the oil company therights to a certain share of the provencrude oil reserves, in return for pumpingup (extracting) crude oil. The oilcompany can then do whatever it wantswith its crude oil. Governments usuallygrant the oil company a share of thecrude oil in the range of 30 – 70%.

The contracts in the case of the Iraqicrude oil, however, are “ServiceContracts (ST)”. Under the ST an oilcompany is only contracted by thegovernment to perform the service ofpumping up the crude oil. For eachbarrel it pumps up, the oil company isthen awarded a remuneration fee. Butownership of the crude oil remains inthe hands of the government. Theremuneration fees for the big fields thathave been auctioned off are all fairlyclose to what the estimated cost is foroperating fields in the Saudi-Iraq area

($1.00 – 2.00). The operators of theRumaila and Zubair oilfields will receive$2.00 per barrel if they are able tosignificantly increase production. Theoperators of the West Qurna Phase 1oilfield will receive $1.90 per barrel. Theoperators of the West Qurna Phase 2oilfield will receive $1.15 per barrel. Andthe operators of the Majnoon oilfieldwill receive $1.39 per barrel. This meansthat the oil companies will have quite astruggle to make a profit on these deals.And if they are able to generate a profitat these remuneration rates, then theseprofits will be taxed by the Iraqigovernment at 35%.

The ST’s the Iraqi government hasagreed with various international oilcompanies have left the control over theIraqi oil firmly in the hands of the Iraqigovernment. The oil companies can layno claim on the Iraqi oil whatsoever, asthey merely have been contracted bythe Iraqi government as serviceproviders.

Also, these ST’s have as a consequencethat by far the largest slice of the profitin pumping up crude oil will go to theIraqi government. They will pay the oilcompanies no more than $2.00 for theservice of pumping up the crude oil thatin the market today is worth around$65, and they will tax whatever profitsthe oil companies are able to make.

America has only strengthened herpositions through the Iraqi oil dealsIt is quite clear, therefore, that throughthe recent auctioning of the Iraqi crudeoil America has strengthened herposition in Iraq.

America has full control over the Iraqigovernment, which means that throughthe established ST’s America hasmaintained full control over the Iraqi oilindustry. Even though it will be run byprimarily non-American oil companies.The ST’s between the Iraqi governmentand the international oil companies arestructured in such a way, that controlover the physical commodity crude oilremains in the hands of the Iraqigovernment, and thereby America.

Under these ST’s even the profitsresulting from production of thecommodity remains in the hands of theIraqi government, and thereby America.The fact that through the ST’s the Iraqioil industry is opened for investmentfor the first time in decades brings animportant additional benefit for theAmerican economy. Most servicescompanies in the oil & gas industry, thecompanies that supply the oilproduction companies with the rigs,pipes and pump stations, are American.The top three in the industry,Schlumberger, Halliburton, and BakerHughes, are all based in Houston, Texas,and should be expected to profitgreatly from the renewed activity inIraq.

At the same time, through allowingforeign oil companies to enter into Iraq,America will have built some goodwillwith these other nations. The ST’s willgive to the other capitalist nations theidea that America is “sharing the pie”and isn’t greedy. As far as the greaterpublic is concerned the same kind ofpublic relations can be build on theST’s. The people can now be led tobelieve America was honest and sincerein its intention of bringing freedom anddemocracy to Iraq all along, and wasnot interested in the Iraqi oil.

Questions may be asked as to why, ifthe American intentions were only todeceive, did the international oilcompanies play the game and acceptedthe terms of these deals. The answer isthat from the fact that America soughtto establish benefit through the ST’s, itis not necessarily the case that theother countries and their oil companieslose a benefit through them. The oilcompanies are still likely to seeimportant benefits in these deals,although they leave little profit margin,such as gaining a foot in the Iraqi door,through which they could work forgetting more profitable deals in thefuture (large parts of Iraq are as of yetunexplored). Also, the oil companiescould have accepted the terms of thesedeals hoping they will be able torenegotiate the terms at a later date.�


Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Suite 301, 28 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3SSTel: 07074 192 400 - www.hizb.org.uk - [email protected]

hizb.org.uk

KMAG FEB 2010:Kmag template201x269American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid...

Documents

Transcript of KMAG FEB 2010:Kmag template201x269American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid...