The following is a translation from Arabic.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
1. The success of the Democratic Party in the US elections does not reflect any change in the basics of American foreign policy except in approach. The reason for that is the President has been given wide powers in matters of foreign policy by their constitution and he can refuse resolutions passed by the Congress because of his over-riding powers. However in practice, he works to convince the Congress and build a consensus so as not to affect his foreign policy stand.
However in matters of domestic issues, the Congress enjoys greater authority and has overriding powers.
It is therefore expected that there will be some increase in the corporate taxes for the big companies and some measure of financial relief for the middle class other changes are also anticipated in the domestic issues.
But so far as foreign policy is concerned, especially in relation to the Muslim countries, there will not be a major impact except in their approach. As such, Bush’s approach was to give no room to their stooges and pawns for any manoeuvring; on the contrary, they were expected to safeguard American interests without even bothering to present them as being in their interest…and against the American and imperial interests! This put their stooges in an embarrassing position and they resented this, and was very much in evident in the case of Syria and Egypt.
It is therefore expected that the Democratic Party will be content and satisfied by giving wider room to the US agents to project themselves as being protectors of the interests of their respective people as was the case earlier during the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton administrations. Also the tone of pressure on Iran and Syria is expected to be somewhat softened. Possibly they may be entrusted with some missions in Iraq and Lebanon which they can showcase to their people as being in their national interest and not in the interest of America.
But apart from this, both the Democrats as well as the Republicans do not differ when it comes to safeguarding and achieving their national interests abroad except as said earlier they differ in their approach and style only. Both of them will not abandon their interests in Iraq and Lebanon in what they call the Middle East crisis. Nor will they allow Europe to share in their influence and clout in the region.
2. The situation in Lebanon continues to remain as we had analysed in our earlier publications. America has for many years, exercised total monopoly and has not allowed Europe to share its influence. On the other hand, Europe is making all efforts to consolidate its gains since Hariri was slain, and is not willing to allow its influence to wane, rather it intends to consolidate the gains and regain its previous supremacy.
Both the parties will endeavour, through their agents in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel to secure their interests. Their standing will accordingly rise or fall in relation to what they are able to thus achieve.
In the current scheme of things, both parties are trying to have each country to itself and this is their priority. For the foreseeable future, there is neither a middle solution nor sharing of influence between them, except when both of them fail to achieve their goals. Now, as is clear from their actions, they are quite capable of securing countries for themselves to achieve their interests; and therefore no middle solution seems to be on cards, with both sides hoping to get what they want.
Warmth is therefore expected in their respective stands, to move to one of the positions: Either each of them achieves their goals; or both of them realise that they are unable to secure countries for themselves and therefore will try move to a middle solution.
3. The Arab foreign ministers meeting and their call for removing the blockade and siege of Palestine was clearly meant to demonstrate to their people that they are not merely sleeping agents, but are capable of saying “no” to their masters; however the fact remains that this bravado was fake and a clear deception. They know very well that the siege can only be removed by two factors:
First: By sending their armies to help the Palestinians and defeating the Jews, this will clear the blockade.
Second: By allowing the Jews to humiliate the Palestinians and fulfilling all the pre-conditions dictated by the Jews, only then will they remove the siege.
So far as the first option is concerned, these ministers know before anyone else that their countries are an important element that provides security to the Jewish entity. They also provide a sense of fake glory of victory to the Jews by kneeling before them and allowing the Jews to bask in this ‘purchased’ sense of bravery which is certainly not the hallmark of the Jews in the first place.
This is the reason why they do not make any efforts to act on this option; they do not even think of it!
As for the second option, the ministers are indeed brave! They hear and observe the dialogue- in word and in deed- on the formation of what they call a government of national unity, comprising of Fatah, Hamas and others and under the supervision of the Jews and their express conditions that are apparent and not hidden. This government, like any other which is under occupation, will reach the end of this vicious cycle, and will have only one option: to recognise the Jewish entity and work with them and under their imposed conditions, only then can this siege be removed!
These ministers claimed that they are fully informed about the talks between the Palestinian authority and the government and their response to the Israeli demands, and they expect that they will be able to meet the demands of the Jews!
Therefore the call by these ministers (to remove the siege) is merely a bluff and a very open bluff indeed. Apart from that, the ministers know well that their financial transactions with the Palestinians can only be through Israeli banks; therefore how can the blockade be removed except by kneeling before the Israeli demands? This also exposes the falsehood and deception of their call to remove the siege.
4. The announcement yesterday of the beginning of talks between India & Pakistan, in which America, from behind the curtains oversees and directs the negotiations. It is clear that the fundamental issue of contention between India & Pakistan is the issue of Kashmir. And for the Muslims of the sub-continent, this is a very sentimental and sensitive issue- very much like the issue of Palestine.
The Muslims in Pakistan can think of no solution to the problem except liberating Kashmir from Hindu occupation and bringing it again under Muslim authority.
When the Indian National Congress came to rule after the previous elections, America knew fully well that this party has leanings and loyalty towards Britain and therefore feared that the relations it developed and nurtured carefully during the rule of Vajpayee for many years before the elections, might be severely affected. Therefore the US did everything it could to consolidate and extend its influence in India and built strong political and military relations, in order to build a superpower that could help America in any confrontation with China. Apart from this, the US also realised that India has a huge population, and can be a tremendous market for the products of American companies.
America is going all out of its way to coax and tempt India to gain more influence there or at least sustain the existing influence gained during the Vajpayee period. Therefore the first act undertaken with this aim is the nuclear agreement with India. It has now prepared the ground for the Congress Party to talk with Pakistan to agree to the Nehru declaration of 1956 on Kashmir. According to this declaration, Kashmir which is under Indian occupation in an inseparable part of India. Pakistan on the other hand contests that position and insists that Kashmir should be reverted back to Muslim authority.
The negotiations that are announced, aim to seek Pakistan’s recognition to Indian rule over Kashmir as was outlined in the Nehru declaration. This is not an easy matter to arrive at, because it hurts Muslim sentiments and is similar to recognising and legitimizing Israeli authority over Palestine. However it is only through negotiations that they aim to achieve Pakistani recognition of Indian occupation and it is the same policy now being pursued in Palestine.
Therefore the negotiations under way between India & Pakistan are a step to please India so that India allows US involvement and use some of its influence. We say ‘some of its’ influence because the Congress party is deeply loyal to the British and does not want to allow US to interfere in its disputes.
Here, a question arises: Pakistan, under Musharraf’s leadership has rendered great services to America in the Afghan war. Despite this, the US clearly continues to hobnob with India at the cost of Pakistan: It has reached the nuclear agreement with India and has not made a similar one with Pakistan. It has pushed Pakistan to negotiate with India on Kashmir which is in India’s interest, since these talks are not meant to find a solution to the crisis, but only to seek Pakistan’s recognition of Indian occupation of the greater part of Kashmir. So why is that America does not stand by Pakistan considering the services rendered by Musharraf?
The answer to this question is that Musharraf is Pakistan’s ruler; and his position is like that of any other agent. He has to protect the interests of the country that sponsors him as the cost for remaining in power. And naturally, protecting the interest of his own country is the lowest priority in the scheme of things. Whoever is in such a position, certainly humiliates himself before he humiliates his enemy. As the Arab poet has said, ‘It is easy to humiliate one who humiliates himself. A dead body feels no pain!’
5. The referendum held on Sunday, November 12th, 2006 on the issue of South Ossetia’s separation and independence from Georgia, is in fact the Russian response to Georgia’s refusal to allow any Russian influence and going along with America since Sakshivili came to power in 2003 CE.
It must be noted that Abkhazia and south Ossetia are disputed territories since the breaking up of the erstwhile Soviet Union.
Despite South Ossetia being a small region to the north of Georgia and bordering Russia and its population is less than 200,000, but the circumstances are vital. The result of this referendum is great increase in American influence and a very insulting waning of the Russian influence. We can say that this has become the focal point of serious tensions in the vicinity of Russia. The consequences of this will be much greater than the size of this small region.
Shawwal 14th 1427 AH.
November 15th 2006 CE