From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
- Relief will fade as we see the real impact of intervention in Libya
- Release of Davis shows the failure of Pakistan's political system
- Muslim Question Time – South London Event
- Statement from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain on Western intervention in Libya
| Relief will fade as we see the real impact of intervention in Libya Posted: 19 Mar 2011 01:56 PM PDT Welcome though it seems on humanitarian grounds, there are six serious problems with this UN resolution First, what motives lie behind this intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan. And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series of uprisings. It is true that the US was reluctant to act and did so only after weeks of indecision. Unwilling to become embroiled in another conflict in the region where it would be perceived as interfering in the affairs of a sovereign state, Obama wisely insisted on a high level of Arab and Muslim involvement. At first the signs were good: the Arab League endorsed the move last week, and five member states seemed likely to participate. But that has been whittled down to just Qatar and the UAE, with Jordan a possible third. This intervention lacks sufficient Arab support to give it legitimacy in the region. The US was worried about the cost of military action, too, given its ailing economy. Abdel Rahman Halqem, the Libyan ambassador to the UN, has told me that Qatar and the UAE have agreed to foot most of the bill for the operation. And what is the motive of these autocratic states: to protect the Libyan people, a grudge against Gaddafi, or to bind the US further into the region? So this is the second problem: the main players in this intervention are western powers led by Britain and France with US involvement likely. If Libya's neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia, were playing the leading role that would be something to celebrate. Democratic countries helping their neighbours would have been in the spirit of the Arab uprisings, and would have strengthened the sense that Arabs can take control of their future. It could have happened too: Egypt gets $1.3bn of US military aid a year. Diplomatic pressure by Hillary Clinton could have brought that mighty war horse into the arena, or at least encouraged Egypt to arm the rebels. Instead, an Egyptian foreign ministry spokesperson stated categorically on Wednesday: "No intervention, period." The third problem is that, although he is often dismissed as mad, Gaddafi is a master strategist and this intervention plays into his hands. He quickly announced a ceasefire in response, which was claimed by some as an early victory for the UN resolution; in fact, it both deflates the UN initiative and allows Gaddafi to appear reasonable. Meanwhile, a ceasefire at this point suits Gaddafi: under its cover, the secret police can get to work. Similarly, Gaddafi accepted the earlier arms embargo: again, this apparent concession suited him. His regime has sophisticated weaponry, whereas the rebels have few arms. Gaddafi knows how to play the Arab street, too. At the moment he has little, if any, public support; his influence is limited to his family and tribe. But he may use this intervention to present himself as the victim of post-colonialist interference in pursuit of oil. He is likely to pose the question that is echoing around the Arab world – why wasn't there a no-fly zone over Gaza when the Israelis were bombarding it in 2008/9? Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, the uprising in Libya quickly deteriorated into armed conflict. Gaddafi could question whether those the UN is seeking to protect are still "civilians" when engaged in battle, and suggest instead that the west is taking sides in a civil war (where the political agenda of the rebels is unknown). And what of the long-term impact of this intervention on Libya, and the world? Here lies yet another concern. Libya may end up divided into the rebel-held east and a regime stronghold in the rest of the country which would include the oil fields and the oil terminal town al-Brega. There is a strong risk, too, that it will become the region's fourth failed state, joining Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. And that ushers in another peril. Al-Qaida thrives in such chaos; it played a key role in the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies and is based in Yemen – and it may enter Libya, too. Several of Bin Laden's closest associates are Libyan, and Gaddafi is no stranger to terror groups – the Abu Nidal Organisation found a safe haven in Libya from 1987 to 1999. Gaddafi has also threatened to attack passenger aircraft and shipping in the Mediterranean. Fifth, there is no guarantee that military intervention will result in Gaddafi's demise. In 1992, the UN imposed two no-fly zones in Iraq – to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Saddam remained in power for another 11 years and was only toppled after an invasion. To date, over a million civilians have died in Iraq. The international community has a duty to ensure that this sorry history is not repeated in Libya. Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo. The Libyan people face a long period of violent upheaval whatever happens. But it is only through their own steadfastness and struggle that they will finally win the peaceful and democratic state they long for. |
| Release of Davis shows the failure of Pakistan's political system Posted: 19 Mar 2011 11:07 AM PDT Whatever the justification Davis's release is more proof of the Pakistan Government's subservience to America The release from Pakistani custody of the American Raymond Davis encapsulates the problem with the Pakistani politics. Davis killed 2 Pakistani citizens in broad daylight in the city of Lahore, another was killed by Davis' accomplice whilst trying to save Davis from arrest. The details of the case are well known what is also well known is the American effort to get him freed. Some say Davis was a CIA agent, others say that he was working for Blackwater or Xe services the private military contractors, no one knows for sure. What is known for sure is that 3 Pakistani Muslims lost their lives when Davis and co. turned downtown Lahore into a scene out of the Bourne trilogy. It is indeed a little sad that the best analogy available to describe the disregard for life that the Americans have in Pakistan is a fictional Hollywood film. It does seem sometimes that what is occurring in Pakistan on a daily basis is something from another reality. Drone attacks (although stopped whilst Davis was in custody), Black ops teams roaming around Islamabad and Lahore in cars with darkened windows and murder in broad daylight. It can be hard to fathom how this can happen in a sovereign country. Now that the Pakistani government has let Davis it leaves many asking the question what next? Over the last decade Pakistan has become nothing more than a tool that the Western world uses to beat up Muslims of the region with. If it's not in Afghanistan then it is in Waziristan, the mighty Pakistan army has been used as a tool to enact US policy for far too long. Although very grim the Davis case isn't the real problem with the Pakistani government it is just a symptom of a system which puts the interests of America first before those of its own people. It makes no difference who is in charge the real power lies with others who see Pakistan as a way to achieve their interests in the South East Asian region. If there is anything Pakistan can learn from the uprising in the Arab world it is that the masses need to start accounting their rulers with real action and not through the corrupted democratic elections that seem to symbolise the only hope for Pakistani politics, but bring only more misery. If there is anything Pakistan can teach those who have overthrown their dictators in the Middle East is that don't trust democracy to bring you any true change. Pakistan has tried every system available to man, democracy, socialist democracy, martial law, military coups and a combination of all of these. They have all failed and have left Pakistan as a slave to anyone who fancies playing master. It is about time Pakistan tried the only system it was formed for and that is Islam, after all the saying goes "Pakistan ka matlab Kya , La ilaha il lilah". |
| Muslim Question Time – South London Event Posted: 19 Mar 2011 10:26 AM PDT Prominent speakers and the public debated the way forward for Muslims following the uprisings in the Arab world. On a freezing Sunday evening in Tooting, South London, almost 200 men and women gathered to launch Muslim Question Time's inaugural event. Muslim Question Time is a new forum launched to provide a public platform for all across London to debate and discuss issues that affect and concern Muslims locally and globally. Muslim Question Time is an open forum where members of the public can hear and contribute to a diverse spectrum of opinions from a panel of distinguished speakers. The on-going revolutions in the Muslim World was an obvious focus for our first event, a subject matter that is close to the hearts of many and it provided for a very lively and informative debate. Our first panel consisted of Sheikh Suleiman Ghani (Tooting Mosque Imam & Islam Channel presenter), Dr Kemal Helbawi (former spokesperson, Muslim Brotherhood), Karl Sharro (Writer, commentator and blogger on the Middle East) and Reda Pankhurst (Hizb-ut Tahrir). Dr Muhammad Omar, one of the founding members of Muslim Question Time chaired the proceedings. Opinions came thick and fast regarding the cause of the recent revolutions, the way forward for the Muslim world and how Muslims in the UK could play a role in resolving these events. Sheikh Suleiman Ghani proposed that we as a Muslim community need to go back to our Islamic roots and improve our morals and connection with Allah SWT so that He may reward us with a path out of these difficult times. Dr Kemal Helbawi focused on finding solutions based upon the people's public opinion in there respective countries and mentioned the Turkish model of governance as an example that works for the people in Turkey. He also mentioned that Muslims needed tarbiyyah to strengthen their resolve for an Islamic solution. Karl Sharro, a humanist, proposed that the people's will should dictate the system that should govern them and that he would back whatever system that may be, whether Islamic or secular. Reda Pankhurst proposed a solution based upon Islamic principles from Qur'an and Sunnah, the Khilafah and gave examples of how this could be implemented in the Muslim world. He said that Muslims were ready for a radical change and had suffered under the current autocratic regimes and that the democratic systems had continuously failed them. The predominant questions and comments from the audience focused upon the failure of the current regimes and dictators to secure peoples interests and showed a weariness of Western-backed solutions and a welcome for alternative solutions based upon Islam. The event ended with each panelist summarizing their respective viewpoints. Muslim Question Time is a bi-monthly event held across London please visit http://www.muslimqt.com or email southmailer@yahoo.co.uk for details of upcoming events.
         |
| Statement from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain on Western intervention in Libya Posted: 19 Mar 2011 05:14 AM PDT Muslims in Libya, like those in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, have responded to the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (salallahu alaihi wasallam) who said "The best Jihad is to speak the word of truth against the tyrant ruler". What we have witnessed in the past few weeks has been the beginning of the end of these tyrant regimes. In the context of calls for Western intervention we would like to make the following points: 1. We, like the Muslims of Libya, want to see the end of Gaddafi's regime and an end to his murder. 2. However, we strongly oppose the British, French and American intervention in the Muslim lands. These countries are the very colonial powers that backed these tyrants for decades to secure their interests in our lands. These regimes were designed in London, Paris and Washington. It is the Western powers who gave them legitimacy and sold them the munitions which they now use against the people. The humanitarian justifications for intervention are no more than a smokescreen to hide their ugly material interests. It would be a betrayal of the blood that has been spilt by those who have been martyred in these revolutions if they are hijacked and the outcome is the maintenance of the same colonial order maintaining Western hegemony in the Arab world. 3. This latest military adventure in Libya in the name of 'liberating' the Libyan people from the murderer Gaddafi needs to be seen in its true colonial context – to try to ensure that whoever takes over Libya will see that Libya continues to remain under Western colonial influence. No amount of talk of humanitarian values and freedom, UN resolutions and a coalition including the despots of the Arab League will erase the memories of the atrocities committed by these powers in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4. The problems of the Muslim world need to be solved by the Muslims. We have allowed others to interfere in our affairs for too long. We call upon the Muslim armed forces in the region to take up their obligation and liberate the people from Gaddafi and his cronies. With a force of over 450,000 the Egyptian army is more than capable of ending Gaddafi's murder and mayhem. If the Saudi army can enter Bahrain to protect the tyrant there, why isn't it able to come to the rescue of the people of Libya? If the despots of the Arab League can come to a resolution of a no-fly zone why are they not able to release their armies to enter Libya? Why have they invited in the very same forces that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq? 5. The real issue for Muslims is the removal of these incompetent puppet rulers and their regimes and to replace them with a sincere accountable Islamic leadership that will have the backbone to solve the problems of the Muslim world without the need for America, Britain or any other Western power. 6. We call upon all Muslims who have been inspired by the extraordinary courage and determination of the people in these revolutions to work for real change which can only come by the re-establishment of an Islamic Khilafah State – a state that will unify the Muslim world, will have an accountable leader that will end torture and repression of its critics, will return the natural resources in our lands into public hands and will ensure the rights of minorities and women as enshrined in the Islamic Shariah. This is the State that will realise the aspirations of the people and free the region from tyranny and colonialism. Hizb ut-Tahrir 14 Rabi II 1432 |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment