The following is an extract of the draft english translation of an excellent recent book entitled 'Political Concepts' which was published in the Arab world in 2005. We will be posting more sections of the book in future.
Political plans and styles used to execute such plans change in accordance with interest; though the plans are of less change than the styles. From following international politics, it is noticed that a plan is a general policy, which is devised for realizing one of the objectives required by the propagation of the ideology or by its method. However, the style is a specific policy related to one of the details that help in accomplishing and strengthening a plan.
As an example, the American plan for Iraq was to occupy it whether with or without an international resolution. Then, a government would be established that gives international legitimacy to the occupation via the United Nations, after it was ignored at the beginning of occupation. This is beside another (local) legitimacy through some form of Iraqi elections. After that, this government would sign, on behalf of the people of Iraq, an agreement that accepts the presence of the occupation forces, and thus give them legitimacy through the request and acceptance of the people of Iraq of their presence, and via an international resolution. This plan would prevent the other states and Security Council from interfering in Iraqi matters, and make America the only country that freely runs the entire affairs of Iraq. This would give legitimacy to the occupation, because its presence was accepted by the legally elected Iraqi government. A new constitution would then be put for Iraq under the supervision of occupation, where division would be devoted, the state would be fragmented under the pretext of federalism, fire of sectarianism would be kindled, and Muslims would be engaged in fighting each other instead of engaging themselves in removing occupation. Therefore, America has used all means and styles available to her for occupying Iraq, according to a devised plan, and then making such occupation legitimate by giving it an international and local legitimacy.
On the other side, the plan devised by France was based on forming, under its leadership, an axis made of great states for confronting the American plan. This French plan necessitated to obstruct Security Council from issuing explicit resolutions that give a cover for the American Plans related to using the SC for invading Iraq. Thus, America completely failed to use the card of SC; and it was also internationally exposed as acting against the (international) law. This made America appear to follow the tyrannical force against the law, instead of being seen as defender to international law, as it used to be seen before. France managed to incite and provoke the emotions of the Germans to a point they upset America by their actions. Russia stood on the side of France by preventing America from using SC to support her plans. As a result, the French plan succeeded in exposing the American aims from the invasion, rather than in preventing it.
The British plan was complicated, devious, where Britain supports America superficially so as to gain a part of the spoils. She appears on America’s side on the international arena whenever the balance of power is in her favour; but it stabs her in her the back every time she found it possible. Britain went along with America because the balance of international forces was in her favour. However, on the other side, it pushed her to propose the issuance of a resolution from the SC concerning the attack on Iraq. Britain did that despite it knew in advance the impossibility of issuing a resolution due to the stance of France, Russia and Germany. Thus, the fault of America was exposed that she wanted to attack Iraq with or without a resolution. Britain emphasised that approach through the presence of Blair in the summit held between Chirac and Schroeder on 20/9/2003. Thus he used the British political cunning so as to consolidate the position of the two states against the American stance, by provoking them through some of the views presented by Britain. This would drive the two states to become more rigid, without showing this British stance openly before America. Britain maintained the same policy even after the occupation of Iraq, and after the presentation of American projects to the UN for granting legitimacy to the occupation.
Another example is the American plan, which she devised to prevent the EU from becoming truly united and becoming threat to America. This plan was based on three axes, which are:
Firstly: It is through expansion of EU so as to contain the states of East Europe. These states are America’s willing tools and her spearhead for inserting America’s influence into the EU. This was demonstrated when these states supported America’s view concerning attack against Iraq. This made Rumsfeld ridicule Europe by calling it old and new Europe. French President, Chirac flared up because of the actions of these (East Europe) states; and he tried to allude that their stance on the side of America would obstruct their final acceptance in the union. Despite that, their entry was agreed upon in the decisive EU meeting held for accepting the new members, and France could not obstruct their entry.
Secondly: It is also through the continuation of NATO pact despite the break-up of the opposite WARSAW pact. Then the strategy of the NATO pact was expanded so as to interfere in the security issues of Europe, instead of its defence against foreign danger as it was since its first formation. When Europe felt of the danger of the alliance against it because its actual leadership is with America, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg called for forming special European force. America objected to that; and she still causes troubles to Europe even before this special European force comes to exist.
Thirdly: America exploits the British stance; this is because Britain, using its famous cunning, does not want the EU to become a unified power where Britain melts inside it and becomes a marginal state like Luxemburg, as an example. It still carries in its depths the glory of the empire, whose territories are not veiled from the sun. Therefore, we had seen it try to obstruct the development of the union; and it did not join it except after it had seen it a reality, so it joined it to weaken it. Until this moment, it did not join the unified European currency (Euro). Its imperial mentality drives it to look for a role on the international arena via any possible mean.
On the other side, the French plan was to strengthen the EU and make of it an appropriate umbrella that faces the American umbrella. This is beside it struggle to form a European army, independent from the NATO pact. It managed to pull Germany to its side in that regard, where it acted very smartly by reaching an agreement with it to an extent that it made Britain join them lest it misses its share in the cake in case France and Germany succeeded in that plan. Thus, France succeeded recently together with Britain and Germany in establishing a nucleus of this army despite the strong American pressures against Britain and Germany for preventing its formation. The plan of the three states also succeeded in drawing long term policies for the EU, in seclusion of the interventions of the small states of the union and the states that endeavour to influence it, like Italy and Spain.
Thus we find France has succeeded in finding a way, though it is still early, to consolidate the EU, through forming an independent military nucleus in Europe by agreement with Germany and Britain. Had not these states embraced capitalism that makes the special interest of each state at top of its own priorities, then they would have succeeded in creating a strong EU that faces America. However, the fact that France succeeded in presenting the plan to the powerful states in Europe, namely Germany and Britain, is considered an important action counter to America, which she cannot ignore.
Another example is the plane devised by America to contain Russia and make of it a state without even regional influence. So, America is working to drive it out of the Balkan area, East Europe and Central Asia. Besides, she tries to annul the effect of its nuclear arsenal that represents an important factor of its power and to tower over it in space as well. America adopted various styles for achieving that. It attacked the Yugoslavian army (Serbia and Kosovo), where there is the Slavic racial relation with Russians, through using the issue of Kosovo. She also established economical and military relations with East Europe states so as to infiltrate in them. Then she annexed many of them in the NATO pact. She also took advantage of war against terrorism, so she established for herself military bases in Central Asia states after she managed to attract some of the rulers of those states through economic aid. Besides, she occupied Afghanistan. Furthermore, she resorted to developing an anti missile system against the Russian missiles so as to annul the effect of the transcontinental Russian missiles that carry nuclear heads. She exploited the poverty in Georgia to push her agents to assume highest position of authority there. This removed the buffer zone between Russia and the NATO in Turkey. She also persuaded Russia to give up its space station, Mare, and take part in the international space station ‘ISS’, so as to obstruct its competition in invading space. Thus, America continues in devising plans for containing Russia, so that it remains without regional influence, after losing its international influence via the collapse of the SU.
She does the same to China, because America views the necessity of forcing China to bow and changing it into an ordinary state, particularly it does not have the elements of a great power. However, since mid nineties and due to the power it has, it became a regional great power, where it has the right of Vito in the SC, besides it has some regional ambitions and wishes, a matter that is not accepted by America. America views China as a huge trade market that must be used, and a human giant that must be tamed, so as not become danger to American interests in the region of East Asia. Therefore, America found it necessary after the end of cold war to contain China and, at best, restrain it within a narrow area of influence if she could not completely cut it of its area of influence. Therefore, America gives attention to normalise the relations with Vietnam so as to make of it a blocking stone before China, once the American-Vietnamese relations improved. She also tries to make the Korean subcontinent an advanced dangerous line around China, through increasing pressure on North Korea under the pretext of axis of evil. At the same time she works to keep her military bases in the area close to the borders of China and at its gate. She also tries to make of India a rival to China; besides her endeavour to create strategic allies and regional military alliances in Central Asia and Middle East. She established as well military bases in Central Asia on the western borders of China, at the other side of Himalaya.
Thus, political plans and styles are devised for an immediate action. However, it is not unlikely that a state changes current styles and search for others if such styles were exposed and became unsuitable. It might also change a plan if it became useless, or its presence caused unnecessary troubles to the state. However, when a state changes its plan, it replaces it with another one. Likewise, when it changes a style, it uses another; and it never restrains from devising plans and styles unless it became weak and declined from its level at international situation, as it happened with those states that lost their political influence like Japan, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Portugal.
As an example for the change in plans is that which America devise for Germany. Her plan was to awaken German militarism and establish West German republic. Then it changed to weakening West Germany, and making a union between it and East Germany, together with controlling armament of Germany. In 1990 it decided to unify it and make of it a strong European state that competes with France and Britain and vies with them for the leadership of EU; a matter that will reduce the possibility of unifying Europe as one force.
The American plan devised for China was to support it and make of it an international player. This was through improving her relations with it, as well as improving the Chinese-Japanese relations. This plan aimed at making of China one of the pillars of international order, in order to weaken the international situation of the SU at that time and to increase the rift between the two archenemy communist allies. After the end of cold war, America changed her plan, and viewed the need of a plan for containing China, and secluding it behind its great wall. So, it resorted to devise a plan that does not allow China to pose danger to America’s interests in East Asia, particularly China has enough means to do that.
The example for change of styles is that which America undertook in the Islamic world countries. In the past she used military coups for bringing her agents into power, economic aid such as loans and development projects, using the experts and the like, besides using the policy of the stick and the carrot. However, she started now to depend on military solutions and intimidation, and returned back to using alliances and military bases, after she abandoned them. This would remind of the period of military colonialism and western imperialism.
Britain had as well changed its styles; so it abandoned the military treaties and bases, and used instead the agent rulers, economic agreements and armament treaties. It seems it is trying to go along with America by returning back to the military bases as an old and new style.
This is a demonstration of the political plans and styles. So, Muslims must know for sure that the western camp does not change its political thought and nor its method. It rather changes its plans and styles so as to draw new plans and follow new styles, in order to be able to propagate its ideology. If its plans were destroyed and its styles were frustrated, then its projects for whose sake these plans and styles were drawn will fail. Therefore, political struggle has to be directed against the plans and styles, by exposing them and resisting them. This struggle has to be undertaken, at the same time, against the political thought and its method. Thereupon, it is inevitable that Muslims have to know the political plans of every state, and distinguish their styles.
The full book is available from Revival Publications
Political plans and styles used to execute such plans change in accordance with interest; though the plans are of less change than the styles. From following international politics, it is noticed that a plan is a general policy, which is devised for realizing one of the objectives required by the propagation of the ideology or by its method. However, the style is a specific policy related to one of the details that help in accomplishing and strengthening a plan.
As an example, the American plan for Iraq was to occupy it whether with or without an international resolution. Then, a government would be established that gives international legitimacy to the occupation via the United Nations, after it was ignored at the beginning of occupation. This is beside another (local) legitimacy through some form of Iraqi elections. After that, this government would sign, on behalf of the people of Iraq, an agreement that accepts the presence of the occupation forces, and thus give them legitimacy through the request and acceptance of the people of Iraq of their presence, and via an international resolution. This plan would prevent the other states and Security Council from interfering in Iraqi matters, and make America the only country that freely runs the entire affairs of Iraq. This would give legitimacy to the occupation, because its presence was accepted by the legally elected Iraqi government. A new constitution would then be put for Iraq under the supervision of occupation, where division would be devoted, the state would be fragmented under the pretext of federalism, fire of sectarianism would be kindled, and Muslims would be engaged in fighting each other instead of engaging themselves in removing occupation. Therefore, America has used all means and styles available to her for occupying Iraq, according to a devised plan, and then making such occupation legitimate by giving it an international and local legitimacy.
On the other side, the plan devised by France was based on forming, under its leadership, an axis made of great states for confronting the American plan. This French plan necessitated to obstruct Security Council from issuing explicit resolutions that give a cover for the American Plans related to using the SC for invading Iraq. Thus, America completely failed to use the card of SC; and it was also internationally exposed as acting against the (international) law. This made America appear to follow the tyrannical force against the law, instead of being seen as defender to international law, as it used to be seen before. France managed to incite and provoke the emotions of the Germans to a point they upset America by their actions. Russia stood on the side of France by preventing America from using SC to support her plans. As a result, the French plan succeeded in exposing the American aims from the invasion, rather than in preventing it.
The British plan was complicated, devious, where Britain supports America superficially so as to gain a part of the spoils. She appears on America’s side on the international arena whenever the balance of power is in her favour; but it stabs her in her the back every time she found it possible. Britain went along with America because the balance of international forces was in her favour. However, on the other side, it pushed her to propose the issuance of a resolution from the SC concerning the attack on Iraq. Britain did that despite it knew in advance the impossibility of issuing a resolution due to the stance of France, Russia and Germany. Thus, the fault of America was exposed that she wanted to attack Iraq with or without a resolution. Britain emphasised that approach through the presence of Blair in the summit held between Chirac and Schroeder on 20/9/2003. Thus he used the British political cunning so as to consolidate the position of the two states against the American stance, by provoking them through some of the views presented by Britain. This would drive the two states to become more rigid, without showing this British stance openly before America. Britain maintained the same policy even after the occupation of Iraq, and after the presentation of American projects to the UN for granting legitimacy to the occupation.
Another example is the American plan, which she devised to prevent the EU from becoming truly united and becoming threat to America. This plan was based on three axes, which are:
Firstly: It is through expansion of EU so as to contain the states of East Europe. These states are America’s willing tools and her spearhead for inserting America’s influence into the EU. This was demonstrated when these states supported America’s view concerning attack against Iraq. This made Rumsfeld ridicule Europe by calling it old and new Europe. French President, Chirac flared up because of the actions of these (East Europe) states; and he tried to allude that their stance on the side of America would obstruct their final acceptance in the union. Despite that, their entry was agreed upon in the decisive EU meeting held for accepting the new members, and France could not obstruct their entry.
Secondly: It is also through the continuation of NATO pact despite the break-up of the opposite WARSAW pact. Then the strategy of the NATO pact was expanded so as to interfere in the security issues of Europe, instead of its defence against foreign danger as it was since its first formation. When Europe felt of the danger of the alliance against it because its actual leadership is with America, France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg called for forming special European force. America objected to that; and she still causes troubles to Europe even before this special European force comes to exist.
Thirdly: America exploits the British stance; this is because Britain, using its famous cunning, does not want the EU to become a unified power where Britain melts inside it and becomes a marginal state like Luxemburg, as an example. It still carries in its depths the glory of the empire, whose territories are not veiled from the sun. Therefore, we had seen it try to obstruct the development of the union; and it did not join it except after it had seen it a reality, so it joined it to weaken it. Until this moment, it did not join the unified European currency (Euro). Its imperial mentality drives it to look for a role on the international arena via any possible mean.
On the other side, the French plan was to strengthen the EU and make of it an appropriate umbrella that faces the American umbrella. This is beside it struggle to form a European army, independent from the NATO pact. It managed to pull Germany to its side in that regard, where it acted very smartly by reaching an agreement with it to an extent that it made Britain join them lest it misses its share in the cake in case France and Germany succeeded in that plan. Thus, France succeeded recently together with Britain and Germany in establishing a nucleus of this army despite the strong American pressures against Britain and Germany for preventing its formation. The plan of the three states also succeeded in drawing long term policies for the EU, in seclusion of the interventions of the small states of the union and the states that endeavour to influence it, like Italy and Spain.
Thus we find France has succeeded in finding a way, though it is still early, to consolidate the EU, through forming an independent military nucleus in Europe by agreement with Germany and Britain. Had not these states embraced capitalism that makes the special interest of each state at top of its own priorities, then they would have succeeded in creating a strong EU that faces America. However, the fact that France succeeded in presenting the plan to the powerful states in Europe, namely Germany and Britain, is considered an important action counter to America, which she cannot ignore.
Another example is the plane devised by America to contain Russia and make of it a state without even regional influence. So, America is working to drive it out of the Balkan area, East Europe and Central Asia. Besides, she tries to annul the effect of its nuclear arsenal that represents an important factor of its power and to tower over it in space as well. America adopted various styles for achieving that. It attacked the Yugoslavian army (Serbia and Kosovo), where there is the Slavic racial relation with Russians, through using the issue of Kosovo. She also established economical and military relations with East Europe states so as to infiltrate in them. Then she annexed many of them in the NATO pact. She also took advantage of war against terrorism, so she established for herself military bases in Central Asia states after she managed to attract some of the rulers of those states through economic aid. Besides, she occupied Afghanistan. Furthermore, she resorted to developing an anti missile system against the Russian missiles so as to annul the effect of the transcontinental Russian missiles that carry nuclear heads. She exploited the poverty in Georgia to push her agents to assume highest position of authority there. This removed the buffer zone between Russia and the NATO in Turkey. She also persuaded Russia to give up its space station, Mare, and take part in the international space station ‘ISS’, so as to obstruct its competition in invading space. Thus, America continues in devising plans for containing Russia, so that it remains without regional influence, after losing its international influence via the collapse of the SU.
She does the same to China, because America views the necessity of forcing China to bow and changing it into an ordinary state, particularly it does not have the elements of a great power. However, since mid nineties and due to the power it has, it became a regional great power, where it has the right of Vito in the SC, besides it has some regional ambitions and wishes, a matter that is not accepted by America. America views China as a huge trade market that must be used, and a human giant that must be tamed, so as not become danger to American interests in the region of East Asia. Therefore, America found it necessary after the end of cold war to contain China and, at best, restrain it within a narrow area of influence if she could not completely cut it of its area of influence. Therefore, America gives attention to normalise the relations with Vietnam so as to make of it a blocking stone before China, once the American-Vietnamese relations improved. She also tries to make the Korean subcontinent an advanced dangerous line around China, through increasing pressure on North Korea under the pretext of axis of evil. At the same time she works to keep her military bases in the area close to the borders of China and at its gate. She also tries to make of India a rival to China; besides her endeavour to create strategic allies and regional military alliances in Central Asia and Middle East. She established as well military bases in Central Asia on the western borders of China, at the other side of Himalaya.
Thus, political plans and styles are devised for an immediate action. However, it is not unlikely that a state changes current styles and search for others if such styles were exposed and became unsuitable. It might also change a plan if it became useless, or its presence caused unnecessary troubles to the state. However, when a state changes its plan, it replaces it with another one. Likewise, when it changes a style, it uses another; and it never restrains from devising plans and styles unless it became weak and declined from its level at international situation, as it happened with those states that lost their political influence like Japan, Italy, Holland, Belgium and Portugal.
As an example for the change in plans is that which America devise for Germany. Her plan was to awaken German militarism and establish West German republic. Then it changed to weakening West Germany, and making a union between it and East Germany, together with controlling armament of Germany. In 1990 it decided to unify it and make of it a strong European state that competes with France and Britain and vies with them for the leadership of EU; a matter that will reduce the possibility of unifying Europe as one force.
The American plan devised for China was to support it and make of it an international player. This was through improving her relations with it, as well as improving the Chinese-Japanese relations. This plan aimed at making of China one of the pillars of international order, in order to weaken the international situation of the SU at that time and to increase the rift between the two archenemy communist allies. After the end of cold war, America changed her plan, and viewed the need of a plan for containing China, and secluding it behind its great wall. So, it resorted to devise a plan that does not allow China to pose danger to America’s interests in East Asia, particularly China has enough means to do that.
The example for change of styles is that which America undertook in the Islamic world countries. In the past she used military coups for bringing her agents into power, economic aid such as loans and development projects, using the experts and the like, besides using the policy of the stick and the carrot. However, she started now to depend on military solutions and intimidation, and returned back to using alliances and military bases, after she abandoned them. This would remind of the period of military colonialism and western imperialism.
Britain had as well changed its styles; so it abandoned the military treaties and bases, and used instead the agent rulers, economic agreements and armament treaties. It seems it is trying to go along with America by returning back to the military bases as an old and new style.
This is a demonstration of the political plans and styles. So, Muslims must know for sure that the western camp does not change its political thought and nor its method. It rather changes its plans and styles so as to draw new plans and follow new styles, in order to be able to propagate its ideology. If its plans were destroyed and its styles were frustrated, then its projects for whose sake these plans and styles were drawn will fail. Therefore, political struggle has to be directed against the plans and styles, by exposing them and resisting them. This struggle has to be undertaken, at the same time, against the political thought and its method. Thereupon, it is inevitable that Muslims have to know the political plans of every state, and distinguish their styles.
The full book is available from Revival Publications
Comments